Truthfully, I find the day difficult to write about. I was 19, had just entered a new university in (upstate) New York as a transfer student, and knew no one. I was suffering from what remains the worst heartbreak I’ve ever experienced and that, compounded by my loneliness and general late-teen angst, made the day even more difficult and frankly, hard to take in. I went through the motions, donated blood, made tea for classmates who awaited news of loved ones, but my depression at the time was so deep and my lack of personal connection to the tragedy–in contrast with those around me–made tears seem like an impossibility. And so I did what I could to take care of others instead.

My first semester at Binghamton was incredibly difficult, for all of the above reasons and more. But, like undoubtedly so many others, the horrific acts perpetrated on September 11, 2001 sparked a desire for understanding and a thirst for knowledge that–for lack of a better term and without any melodramatic connotations–saved me from myself. Two days later, I returned to my courses (among them one on women’s rights in the Arab world, taught by an Egyptian professor) with a renewed desire to learn. Between that course and my own realization that my lack of knowledge on Islam and the Arab world was…well, vast…I was struck by the notion of pursuing that line of study, eventually majoring in sociology, with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa. It was through that pursuit that I met one of my favorite professors, who advised me to go to his native country, Morocco, which I then did–first for a short-term study of Arabic and later for two years.

I wish that I could tell you that I understand why a group of terrorists felt as though targeting more than 3,000 innocent civilians was justified. Many simply blame Islam, but both my studies and my experience belie that theory and in fact, such rhetoric has only served to separate us further apart (both globally and within the context of the United States). Others blame the actions of the United States in the region, but nor is it that simple (as Reza Aslan so succintly writes: “Only a fool would think that the hijackers believed their actions would bring peace to Palestine or result in the removal of American troops from Muslim lands.”) No, in truth I don’t feel as though I will ever understand, just as I will never understand the resulting Muslim-bashing cottage industry.

Instead, I learned, as Roger Ebert wrote just days later, that the events of September 11 were “not the possession of a nation but a sorrow shared with the world.” I learned that most of the time, we are far more alike than we are different. And sadly, I also learned, as Sultan Al Qassemi so aptly wrote today that “the result over several years was the real winners of 9/11 were none other than the extremists who had inspired, encouraged and supported the action.”

Though in contrast with what one might hear in speeches today at Ground Zero, and in the rhetoric of conservative politicians, I believe Al Qassemi is correct. The subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the 800+ revenge attacks on Muslim-Americans, and what seems like an ever-deepening cultural divide in the United States are all evidence of that. At the same time, the unconscionable treatment of first responders, as well as the near-obsession with Shari’a law and the national reaction to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque,” all demonstrate to me a populace more preoccupied with rhetoric and politics than with bridging these very real divides.

The fact is, whether one’s views on Islam are favorable or not, we must not continue to allow terrorism—both past and threatening–to impede our ability to live together on this earth as humans. There is no anti-Islam rhetoric that will further that cause.

That’s why I was fairly surprised when, last night, NPR fired commentator Juan Williams, for bigoted anti-Muslim remarks made during an appearance on Fox News.  Before delving into a discussion of whether or not NPR’s decision was justified, let’s examine what Williams said:

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot.  You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

The first question is whether or not Williams’s comments were bigoted.  I would argue that yes, they were.  Surprisingly, I agree with Andrew Sullivan’s assessment:

What percentage of traditionally garbed Muslims — I assume wearing a covered veil or some other indicator and being of darker skin — have committed acts of terror? . . . The literal defense of anti-Muslim bigotry on Fox is becoming endemic. It’s disgusting.

What Williams has done is equate religiosity with terrorism which, as Sullivan describes, is the very definition of bigotry.  As Glenn Greenwald points out, Williams’s comments were “suffused with falsehoods, not facts.”  Every single Muslim who has thus far committed an act of terror on an airplane was wearing Western clothing, not “Muslim garb.”  And wearing traditional clothing does not necessarily imply putting one’s religion before other identifiers – hijab, for example, is (though there’s certainly plenty of debate around this point) prescribed by Islam, therefore, it seeks to reason that anyone wearing it is simply fulfilling their religious duty.  A Muslim woman wearing hijab is just as normal as a Jew refusing pork: a part of the religion, not the be-all, end-all.  Not the foremost identifier.

To those defending Williams’s comments, I also wonder where they draw the line.  One person argued to me that this was “different from racism,” because “Muslims choose their religion.”  I would beg to differ; the racialization of Muslims is an important concept to understand.  It’s why Arab Christians and Sikhs suffer the same treatment in airports as Muslims.  You can’t simply justify that by calling it “fear.”

I also have to wonder what would have been the reaction if a commentator had said they fear for their children in the presence of priests, or that they move to the other side of the street when they encounter a black man.

But in the end, was NPR still right to fire Williams, based on that single incident?  Greenwald hits the nail on the head:

I’m not someone who believes that journalists should lose their jobs over controversial remarks, especially isolated, one-time comments.  But if that’s going to be the prevailing standard, then I want to see it applied equally.

Over the course of the past year, we’ve witnessed the firings of Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr, and Shirley Sherrod, all of whom were fired for sharing their personal beliefs, however controversial.  More recently, Rick Sanchez was fired from CNN for “criticizing his employer,” because of a suggestion that CNN was run by Jews (oddly enough, NPR called it a result of bullying).

The firing of Juan Williams is, in the broader context, justified.  Fundamentally, however, should any of these people been fired?  A few people, such as journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, have suggested that it would be better to talk it out:

Jarvis unfortunately wouldn’t answer my question as to whether or not he held the same opinion in respect to Thomas, Nasr, or Sanchez.

I think that’s a question worth asking: Would it have been better to have an honest discussion of the origins of Israel than firing the White House’s oldest correspondent?  Would it have been better to talk about why some people have respect for Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah?  Would it have been better to have a real conversation about whether or not Jews today are a persecuted minority?

Frankly, I would answer yes to every one of these questions.  Fundamentally, I don’t believe that firing Thomas, Nasr, or Sanchez was the right move (nor Sherrod, of course, but let’s stick to journalists for the purpose of this discussion).  It most certainly would have been better to hold honest discussions on tricky subjects, but every time, for fear of offense, there has been refusal to do so.

At the same time, I don’t believe for a second that we can have a productive conversation about the American fear of Muslims in this country, let alone one lead by anyone at Fox News.  Judging by Williams’s comments, I don’t believe he’s ever spent much time with Muslims, and I’m positive that O’Reilly hasn’t.  Even the more sensible of American television commentators, Christiane Amanpour and Diane Sawyer, have been criticized heavily for their recent framing of discussions about Islam in America from both sides of the line.  Many people saw Amanpour’s framing of the question (“should Americans fear Islam?”) as feeding into the hands of the Right, while those on the Right saw her handling of the debate as biased in favor of Muslims.

So where do we go from here?  How can we have a reasonable discussion about Islam and Muslims in America when so many Americans are unwilling to admit that Islamophobia is not so different from racism? More importantly, how can we foster better understanding when so many Americans are unwilling to open their minds?

I’ve certainly done enough railing against my fellow–yes, white–Americans for what appears to be a resurgence in say-it-loud-and-clear racism, this time toward Muslims (and don’t give me that “Muslims aren’t a race” crap).  But at a point, it feels disingenuous to do only that.  I’m American, I live in the U.S. currently.  I spend my time around other Americans, none of whom have said a single harsh word against Muslims (or Park51), and most of whom have outright supported them.  I also don’t blame my friends in other countries for feeling anger toward my country right now; it’s all too easy to find examples of how things have gone wrong.

But one of the first lessons I learned living abroad was that anger toward one’s country or government does not necessarily–or even usually–imply anger toward one’s people.  And though there are individuals I wouldn’t blame a soul for feeling anger toward (Pamela Geller, Pastor Terry Jones…), I think most people are capable of seeing the good as well.

Kristof, in his column, points to Rachel Barenblat, the Velveteen Rabbi, as an example: Angered by the New York man who entered a mosque and urinated on its prayer rugs, Barenblat took to her blog to raise funds to send to the mosque.  The final check was for $1,100.

And what about the New Yorkers who rallied to raise $30,000 to support Ahmed Sharif, the cab driver stabbed in his own taxi last month?

And then there are the tweets: counterwording, an ingenious Twitter bot set up by some good friends of mine, has been tweeting to anyone that mentions “Ground Zero” and “mosque” in the same sentence.  Though many of the responses to the bot have played along the lines of conspiracy theory and bigotry (“I’m well aware it’s a Muslim cultural center & will recruit Muslims in the shadow of Ground Zero” – aurich109), there have been lots of pleasant surprises as well from Americans ready to defend the rights of their fellow Americans.  The following are some of the positive responses to the question “Did you know that Park51 is not a mosque and is not at Ground Zero?”

• “yeah, i know its actuaLLy a community center 4 bLocks away. wouLdnt bother me if it was onLy a mosque on Ground Zero”
• “It’s a mosque AND an Islamic cultural-outreach center, to my knowledge. And antis to it are mostly racists from outside NYC.”
• “Yes I do know & I support them building it, they own the property and they should be able to do as they please.”
• “Yes. That’s why I put Ground Zero in speech marks, to denote it is a baseless opinion. I support the community centre.”

And the list goes on. Of course these outpourings of support are all isolated examples, but in my experience, so are the outpourings of bigotry, at least where I’m from.

And in New York, where I’m not from but which I know to be one of this country’s most tolerant, most diverse places, an Egyptian New Yorker has been standing outside of Park51 for a couple of weeks, and tells us that most of her companions in solidarity are not Muslim.  They’re just New Yorkers, standing up for what they believe in as New Yorkers are wont to do.

No matter how convinced I remain that I don’t like the direction this country is headed in, politically, militarily and otherwise, I remain convinced also that there are loads of amazing people out there who agree with that point, and who are out there fighting as best they can, or standing up for their fellow countrymen and women, or helping someone in need.

And just as there is bad everywhere, so is there good.

Though we tended to agree on media biases for the most part, my counterpart felt that human perception, American perception, was not so skewed.  He explained that, in his experience, mostly in the Midwest, he’d never come across anti-Arab or anti-Muslim rhetoric; that people were more likely to be completely ignorant of the Israeli-Palestinian issue than take one side or the other, and that he thought I was taking it too far.

I thought about his words for a long time; he was honest about his experience, and his truth wasn’t that far from mine: Neither growing up, nor now, have I heard many anti-Muslim sentiments. Sure, I’ve heard the ol’ “free the women from the veil” rhetoric, and support for the war, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen firsthand the kinds of sentiment we’re now seeing in the media.   That’s what makes it so shocking to me.

One in five Americans thinks Obama is a Muslim. 61% oppose an Islamic cultural center in an historically Muslim neighborhood. 56% view Islam unfavorably. Three months after that particular conversation in that faraway land, I’m left wondering: Who are these people? Three months after that evening, and I don’t think my conversation partner could have been more wrong.

“Islamophobia” was an accurate term immediately after 9/11.  However unjustified, people were afraid, and Islam was an easy target.  There were lots of questions from many different people, myself included, about what had caused people do something so horrific.  The study of Arabic immediately began to increase in the U.S.  Study abroad programs to the Middle East and North Africa picked up rather quickly (I did mine in 2004, just three years later).  People wanted to understand (they also wanted to join forces with the government against our “enemies,” but there’s only so much one can fit into a single blog post).

And then a curious thing happened: The word “jihad” seemed to enter everyone’s vocabulary.  Suddenly everyone was an expert on Islam, and the more you expressed hatred of it, the further you seemed to go in counterterrorism circles, journalism (see: Fox), and conservative politics (see: most of ‘em).

Cut to 2010, and with the simultaneous dumbing down of America comes the rapidly increasing hatred toward Muslims, most of which can be deemed straight up racism. The identity of “Muslim” has always been a fairly racialized one, applying in the United States mainly to Arab, South Asian, and Black communities, and taking on racial characteristics (the inimitable Fatemeh Fakhraie has an excellent piece on the racialization of Muslims here). Muslims are painted in the media with one brush: they are the turbaned or veiled brown-skinned Other, shouting in the (Arab) street. They are dirty-footed brown skinned children lobbing rocks at the civilized (insert-your-country-here) military. Muslim identity in the United States (and certainly elsewhere) has become racialized and the sentiments expressed against Muslims of late is racism.

Thus, what’s happening today can no longer be described as “Islamophobia”, it is no longer an accurate term. People aren’t scared of Muslims, they flat-out hate them. They hear shrieks from the likes of Sarah Palin and Pamela Geller and come running, machetes “blood-dripped” “Sharia” signs in hand, ready to “fight the good fight.”

Image: New York Times

But what exactly are these people fighting? Sharia? Islamic values? Brown people? Whatever Fox news told them to? In one photograph, a protester is seen wearing a Confederate flag on his shirt, a fact which leads me to believe that a) these protesters are not New Yorkers and b) they’re, as I said before, just plain racist.

As Glenn Greenwald so aptly puts it, this “mosque” debate is not simply a distraction. Rather, it is bringing to light vicious hostilities that a large percentage of the American public holds toward Muslims. As Greenwald says, “The Park51 conflict is driven by, and reflective of, a pervasive animosity toward a religious minority — one that has serious implications for how we conduct ourselves both domestically and internationally.”

I leave you not with my own thoughts (which are, in sum: I support my Muslim brothers and sisters and fear for my country) but with the words of none other than Dick Cavett, whose New York Times column left a smile on my face:

I remain amazed and really, sincerely, want to understand this. What can it be that is faulty in so many people’s thought processes, their ethics, their education, their experience of life, their understanding of their country, their what-have-you that blinds them to the fact that you can’t simultaneously maintain that you have nothing against members of any religion but are willing to penalize members of this one? Can you help me with this?

This, of course, begs a couple of serious questions:

1. Does Sarah Palin actually not understand the Constitution?
2. Where was Sarah Palin to defend Shirley Sherrod, Octavia Nasr, or Helen Thomas?

Oh wait, I know exactly where Sarah Palin was when Helen Thomas was forced to resign, because she saved her own tweet about it in her “favorites”:

Palin was quite clearly on the side of getting rid of Helen Thomas for a single comment, despite years of incredible work as a journalist. But when it comes to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, whose years of work as a radio personality include calling gay people a “biological error” and telling abused women they “asked for it,” Palin is suddenly concerned about free speech.

Nevermind the fact, of course, that our Constitution’s first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to a public audience, as Rashad Robinson so eloquently explains in this piece.

What it comes down to, in my view, is that Sarah Palin (and her Tea Party ilk) think it’s okay to invoke one’s free speech for the sake of racist comments, but that those who defend against racism (or more accurately, those who defend Muslims) should be shut down.

I don’t understand why Cordoba House is a problem, I don’t understand why it “stabs hearts,” and I don’t understand why Americans continuously demand that “moderate Muslims” repudiate terrorists but then can’t recognize the difference between a Muslim and a terrorist themselves.

CONTEST is the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism strategy, with a stated aim to “reduce the risk to the UK and its interests from international terrorism.” The UK’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU) is set up to commission communications research to support the CONTEST strategy.

According to a recent Guardian piece, the RICU commissioned a study to estimate and track the scale and influence of Islamic bloggers in Britain. Like the Berkman Center’s mapping of the Arabic-language blogosphere, the study used link analysis as a method to determine popularity of certain blogs.

Unlike the Berkman Center’s study, however, which focused on the wider Arabic-language blogosphere and encompassed over 35,000 blogs (6,000 of which were then mapped, and 4,000 of which were hand-coded by Arabic-speaking researchers), the RICU study looked at around 140 blogs identified (by researchers, using keywords) as “pro-Islamic,” gathered from the blog directories BlogCatalog, Blogorama, (the now defunct) BritBlog, eTalkingHead, and Technorati, and found via keyword searches on Google Blog Search.

The researchers then identified the top 20 blogs for deeper analysis, resulting in the following table:

Number 3 immediately caught my eye of course; the Angry Arab News Service is a blog written by As’ad Abukhalil, a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley, who on Facebook currently describes his own religion as “Banana Cream Pies” (note to those who don’t follow the Angry Arab: a) you should and b) a quick read will show you that he’s an atheist secularist with a wicked sense of humor.)

I read the whole paper, looking for an explanation–There wasn’t one. The study’s stated purpose made things no clearer:

The purpose of this study has been to measure the size of the community of Islamic (pro-leaning) bloggers who post, in English, on topics pertaining to politics in and about the UK. Second, to gain an indicative understanding of the level of social networking amongst that community and to provide some form of hierarchical structure to it.

The study relied on link analysis, so it makes sense that Angry Arab would turn up in the initial results; he is a prolific blogger, who links often to news stories–both those with which he agrees and those which he does not. But no amount of “deeper analysis” would find him to be a “pro-Islamic leaning blogger,” as the study indicates.

The first blog on the list is that of Ali Eteraz, a Pakistani lawyer and novelist, whose book made it to Oprah’s gilded list. His writing contributions online range as far as Jewcy and the Huffington Post. I don’t actually know if Eteraz is a practicing Muslim; that would require digging beyond his web site, for sure. His “Islamic leanings” seem to be derived from his background and a deep interest in politics of so-called Islamic countries, which he writes about frequently. Based solely on his web site, is he “pro-Islamic?” As much as I am.

It’s clear to me that researcher David Stevens, of Nottingham University, who carried out the research, didn’t bother to read Angry Arab’s blog at all. His reliance on link analysis and keywords (often used by bloggers to self-define) isn’t enough; blogosphere research requires a human touch. Stevens’ research, judging by his staff profile on Nottingham’s web site, has nothing to do with Internet and society. His main area of research is contemporary Anglo-American (normative) political philosophy. I’m not sure what the UK’s Home Office was thinking commissioning blogosphere research from a philosopher with limited knowledge of blogging.

In fact, I’m not sure what the Home Office was thinking at all; if CONTEST is a counter-terrorism strategy and RICU an agency to support counter-terrorism research, then why a blog study analyzing “Islamic” or “pro-Islamic” blogs? The study appears to be making the case that being “Islamic” (or Muslim) is a short hop away from being a terrorist (or for that matter, an Islamist).

If this study is taken at face value for its link analysis, it’s perfectly sound: yes, these bloggers link to “Islamic” web sites. Any deeper look, however, shows a shallow and quite frankly, racist study that attempts to draw lines between bloggers who are Muslim or Arab, with a strong interest in politics and who are prolific writers, with terrorism.

If this is what’s shaping the UK’s anti-terrorism policy, we have two reasons to be afraid: For our Muslim friends, whose very mention of their religion can apparently deem them worth tracking, and for the fear of actual terrorist activity online, which lies far beyond any place this study could reach.

*The Guardian’s Brian Whitaker also tore the study apart, but I personally don’t feel that he went far enough in his criticisms.

So today, when I spotted this delicious rant of Jason’s on TechCrunch, I was quite pleased to be among the first in line to watch his descent:

RANT: For over a year, I haven’t visited a gas station and have been able to give the finger to the bastards in the Middle East who believe that women and gays are about as valuable as dogs, and that the freedoms we enjoy in the United States are the root causes of all evil. If Obama had any leadership ability, as opposed to his consensus-building nonsense, he would have taken the billions we’re going to spend in Afghanistan and simply spent that money on electric car and solar subsidies in America. We have to stop wasting our money building schools and bridges for backwards societies that don’t appreciate them and start spending that money on energy independence. There is no reason we couldn’t put solar panels on every rooftop in America, and electric cars in every driveway, instead of spending money fighting enemies that don’t want the freedom we’re promoting. Sorry about the rant, but I’m really frustrated that Obama, who I voted for, is such a disappointment. He was supposed to bring some innovation to politics and his policies feel no different than the failed strategies of Cheney/Bush (in that order). If I was president, I would cut our losses in the Middle East and stop sending any money there, instead investing it in nuclear, solar, wind and EVs. This is such an obvious solution to everyone except the idiots we put in power. Shame on all of us. END RANT

Don’t get me wrong – in the midst of his total bigotry, Calacanis has a couple of good points about energy; I’m all about getting off oil (though obviously not for the same reasons). But then, wait, he goes on to say this (in a response to another comment):

It fairly well established that our presence in the region is not welcome. We really shouldn’t be there trying to force democracy on people who believe in lashing women, gays and people who think differently than the religious zealots who run the place.

The more time we spend there the more terrorists we inspire. We should leave and make strategic strikes on terrorist outposts when we need to. We can’t win the heart and minds of people who don’t believe in the most basic human rights (let alone who let religious leader run their societies).

Are their intelligent people in the middle east? Sure, they are just not in charge, in jail or they’ve been murdered already.

Wait wait wait…what? The only intelligent people in the Middle East are in jail or dead?

I’m pretty sure Calacanis’s absurd rant speaks for itself, so I’ll just leave ya’all to marvel in it…

There are a million more things to say, and as @weddady and I have enjoyed pointing out on Twitter, there are lots of incredibly intelligent and awesome Arabs reading TechCrunch, reading Jason’s bullshit, and calling him out on it. We’ve also enjoyed pointing out Arabloggers.com, Arab Techies, the fact that Harvard’s studying Arabic blogs, and all the numerous incredible Arab tech orgs. But Jason’s not interested in that.

Here’s my TechCrunch comment, in full:

Look, you have some points about energy; regardless of where we’re getting it from, there’s no reason to remain dependent on oil with the technology we’re capable of.

But shit like this? “I haven’t visited a gas station and have been able to give the finger to the bastards in the Middle East who believe that women and gays are about as valuable as dogs, and that the freedoms we enjoy in the United States are the root causes of all evil.”

What the HELL do you know? Honestly? Have you ever set foot in the Middle East? Clearly, you’ve never been to Beirut, at least.

But lest I think you’re singling out just the dictators in power…

“Are their intelligent people in the middle east? Sure, they are just not in charge, in jail or they’ve been murdered already.”

Wow, Jason. I’m not sure it gets more ignorant than that.

Oh, and Mahalo sucks.

Many people are outraged at the Swiss people’s decision to ban minarets from their skylines, a decision made by referendum.

From the outset, let me say that I am wholly opposed to this decision, just as I am opposed to the burqa ban in France, Egypt’s ban on building churches, several Muslim countries’ bans on conversion, and Saudi Arabia’s banning of female hair.  I fundamentally believe in the right of anyone to practice their religion, anywhere (though I certainly prefer they keep it to themselves).  I should also say that two wrongs don’t make a right: I’ve heard plenty of statements along the lines of “good for the Swiss, they’re standing up to Islam” from people who, were the tables turned, would call inequality if a majority-Muslim nation does the same thing.

That said, much of the outrage today seems to be directed solely at the Swiss, with much emphasis on the fact that Switzerland is a democracy, and the referendum was voted on by the people.  It would seem that Switzerland is being held to a higher standard than those Muslim countries with similar practices; Fair enough, you might say, those Muslim countries with similar laws are not democracies. What people seem to be forgetting is that democracy can have undesirable results: Hitler was approved by an 85% vote of the people, for example, and everyone’s favorite example—Hamas—was elected by popular vote almost four years ago.

So why do so many people hold Switzerland to a higher standard?  Is the assumption that a country which gives the freedom of voting to its citizens a better country?  Mind you, I’ve never actually been to Switzerland, but having lived nearly 25 years in the United States, I can say with absolute certainty that there have been a great number of poor democratic choices made by the people in my lifetime, and undoubtedly many more will follow.  But here, when we complain, we are waved off with the statement, “But it is the will of the people.”  And what if the people are just not right?

I find this incident particularly ironic: What a lot of Europeans and Americans seem not to realize is that, often, Muslims have left their own countries and emigrated to the so-called West in search of better opportunity, or more freedom.  Bigoted types, when ranting about Muslims in Europe, often use the tired old claim that “they should go back where they came from.”  What this totally ignores is that where they came from may have been somewhere where they lacked the freedom to practice Islam as much or as little as they wanted.  Or more often, that “where they came from” is in fact where they are: Plenty of Swiss Muslims were born in Switzerland and know no other country as their home.

Nevertheless, it was not the Swiss Muslims who made the decision to ban minarets.  It was 58% of the voters, a 58% vote from racists who think that somehow banning minarets will do something other than anger Muslims, driving them farther toward the fringe and for some, toward more extreme beliefs.

Democracy is only as righteous as its citizens.  And if the citizens of a country are racist, democracy will reflect that.

*****

Last week, a few days after the horrific events of Fort Hood, a Marine reservist in Florida mistook a visiting Greek Orthodox priest for a “terrorist” and beat him with a tire iron.  The reservist (who was indeed white) made all sorts of wild claims — that the priest yelled “Allahu Akbar,” that he made a lewd hand gesture. . . claims that have been widely refuted.

I don’t know exactly what it is about white Americans. . . I can say, from anecdotal personal experience, that Europeans and other white people traveling throughout the Middle East and North Africa often make silly orientalist comments, and I’m fully aware of the idiotic British BNP (and other European right-wing parties) that would happily rid Europe of all Muslims. However, there seems to be a special kind of ignorance amongst white Americans when it comes to Muslims and Arabs.  It goes something like this:

1. They don’t know the difference between “Muslim” and “Arab.” Remember last year during one of McCain’s town hall meetings when a middle-aged white woman objected to Obama by saying, “but he’s-he’s-an ARAB!”?  It was obvious to many of us that what she really meant to object to was his religion — after all, it was part of the zany right-wing public debate at the time — but instead she just somehow got confused and cried “Arab.”  You know, because it doesn’t really matter right?  Which brings us to McCain’s response . . . “No, he’s not, ma’am, he’s a DECENT family man.” As if being an “Arab” disqualifies a man from being a decent family man.  Which leads to:

2.  They think “Muslim” and “good person” are mutually exclusive. McCain was quite aware that the woman meant to say “Muslim” and yet chose to defend Obama not just by saying “No, ma’am he’s not,” but also by feeling compelled to add “he’s a decent family man.”  The implication?  That one cannot be both an Arab (or Muslim, since that’s what we all know the woman meant) and a good man. I often hear comments about how obesity is the last acceptable prejudice in this country, but I’d like to argue that Islamophobia is far more widespread and accepted. Can you imagine if white people blatantly still said such horrible things about Black people? It’s completely unheard of in many parts of the United States for someone to say “nigger,” but “sandnigger”?  In many places in this country, that’s totally okay.

3. They don’t realize that most Muslims aren’t Arab. Going back to point #1, the imagery of what it means to be Muslim in the United States is so tied in with our images of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf (not even the Arab world on the whole!) that even on progressive blogs, you will often see people refer in blanket terms to Muslim women’s dress as “the burqa.”  What they don’t seem to realize is that the countries with the largest Muslim population are all in Asia (where, mind you, women don’t even wear the burqa), and not Arab at all!

4. They mistake non-Muslims and non-Arabs for Muslims and Arabs.  In the years since 9/11 (though before as well), many groups have become collateral damage in racist attacks against Arabs and Muslims in the U.S.  Iranians, Greeks, Sikhs, Hindus, and sometimes, anyone with a beard seems to be a target. 6 years ago, a Hindu was mistaken for a Muslim in Boston and beaten. . .and just last week, as noted above, it happened to a Greek priest.

5. They think “Middle Eastern” is a race.  Except on the census. While the region also known as the Middle East and North Africa is often referred to as “the Arab world,” the latter is somewhat of a misnomer and more accurately refers to a shared language (kind of like the way Latino is often used).  From Morocco to Saudi Arabia, there are Arabs, but there are also Amazigh (Berbers), Moors, Bedouins, and plenty of other native groups that prefer not to be referred to as “Arab.”  But when they come to the United States, it doesn’t matter anyway, as they’re expected to check the “White” box. . . imagine arriving from Mauritania, on the continent of Africa, and being told you can’t check the “African-American” box.  True story.

6. They assume that all Arabs are Muslim. I love this one. . . It never ceases to amaze me the blanket statements made about “that part of the world,” and “their practices.”  Nevermind the native Coptic, Maronite, and Orthodox Christian populations, the converts, the Jews, the Druze, the Zoroastrians, the Baha’i.  And if on the off chance you do meet someone who is aware of those other populations, they’re still likely to try to convince you that they’re those populations are all oppressed by the Muslims, anyway.  Which brings me to my last and most important point. . .

7. They pretend it’s not racism.  So, Islam is not a race, and to many, “Arab” isn’t either. . . It doesn’t matter: there is plenty of evidence of racism against all of the aforementioned groups. In fact, there’s significant evidence to suggest that systematic racism is practiced against Muslims and those with Muslim or Arab-sounding names (regardless of actual faith) in a number of places.  This BBC article discusses the racist practice of not hiring Arabs and Muslims based on name alone (in France). Though I’m not aware of any study, I’ve seen the same happen in the U.S. And the exclusion of North Africans from being qualified as “African-American” on the census and on scholarship applications (again, they’re supposed to check the “white” box) means they’re doubly discriminated against: Not really white, but not non-white enough to benefit from certain programs.

And that’s only the beginning — as we saw in a video Macon posted last week, Muslims (especially Muslim women who wear hijab) are often assumed not to be American, even when they were born here.  Arabs are pulled to the side for “random checks” nearly every time they fly.  And more often than not, when an Arab or Muslim does commit a crime, the entire Arab and Muslim communities are expected to speak out against it (ask yourself: would we expect the same every time a Christian or white person committed a crime?).

Here’s a thought: Perhaps if people, and the media, made more of an effort to know the difference between a Muslim, an Arab, a Persian, a Hindu. . . or better yet, a Moroccan, a Syrian, a Saudi, a Kuwaiti. . . Perhaps if everyone made more of an effort to see people as unique peoples from particular countries and cultures, or better yet — as individuals! — they would be less likely to commit atrocious acts against them based on assumptions.  Perhaps they would be less likely to expect Muslims as a group to speak for one individual Muslim, and perhaps they’d be more likely to understand that an entire mass of 325 million people who just happen to share a common language most certainly do not share a common perspective.