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.

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.

I got to thinking about the intersection of these two points; if it’s true that my generation distrusts media (and I tend to believe it is), then it seeks to reason that we’re equally wary of the overuse of certain terminology, memes and phrases.  Just as “commie” was tossed around in the days of yore, “terrorist” has become grossly overused, applied unquestioningly to criminals of Arab, Muslim, or seemingly Arab or Muslim persuasion.

This morning I was watching a Good Morning America report on the recent assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh and noticed, with surprise, that Hamas was repeatedly referred to only as “a Palestinian group.” A quick Google of today’s headlines reflects a similar pattern.

I’m not arguing whether or not Hamas deserves the categorization, but let’s assume for a moment that they, and anyone on the U.S. State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations is, in fact, a terrorist group. Is the FARC subjected to the same media treatment as Hamas? A quick Google News search says no – in fact, the only times “FARC” and “terrorist” turn up in the same sentence are in reference to Washington’s designation. FARC is typically referred to in the U.S. media as a paramilitary or guerrilla group, whereas Hamas and Hezbollah are almost always designated terrorists. I’d be interested to discover whether or not “terrorist” is applied to other non-Arab/non-Muslim entities designated by the U.S. as terrorists.

There’s another, perhaps more important set of questions surrounding the use of the word terrorist: How is the term applied to a) Arabs and Muslims who commit crimes not typically considered “terrorist” activities? and b) Are non-Arab, non-Muslim people who partake in actual terrorist activities (such as bomb-making or murdering abortion providers) deemed “terrorists” in the media? (Racialicious has a good post on this)

The former question is one for which I have little to no evidence (which is not to say it doesn’t exist); the latter seems clear: Rarely are white terrorists referred to as such. Consider the 2009 shooting deaths of abortion provider George Tiller and Holocaust Memorial Museum security guard Stephen T. Johns. Tiller was the victim of a shooting by an extreme-right wing, Christian terrorist, who was part of a larger movement. Johns’ murderer was a well-known white supremacist writer. Neither murderer was deemed a terrorist in initial reports (unlike say, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab); and though a few subsequent reports may have used the term, by the time the news is out, it’s out…parroted reports hardly seem to matter in terms of influencing public opinion.

Another open question is whether or not the word “terrorist” (and for that matter, “al Qaeda,” often broadly used to refer to terrorist movements) has lost meaning in the nine years since 9/11. We are inundated with its use on an hourly basis (don’t believe me? Google News it). Once a word is heavily used by one network, it tends to be parroted by others–look at Media Matters’ research into the word “rape” as used by conservative pundits to refer to the actions of the Democratic party. Media Matters also looked into the use, or lack of, the word “terrorist” in Obama’s Cairo address. Obama, addressing a crowd made up almost entirely of Muslims, avoided use of the word “terrorism,” a fact which conservative pundits immediately jumped on. The New York Times noted the fact as well, but commented that it was “a departure from the language used by the Bush administration, but one that some Middle East experts suggested reflected a belief by the new administration that overuse had made the words inflammatory.” I think it’s important to view this in context: Was Obama right to avoid the use of the word entirely? Likely not, but given the overuse of the word and its disproportionate usage when referring to Arabs and Muslims, I can see why he did it. And it’s worth recalling that he didn’t avoid discussion of extremism and the ideologies it feeds on, rather, he simply avoided a word whose use has become so commonplace it’s been rendered virtually meaningless.

So this is what I’m thinking about. I’m sure the impending release of Media Cloud will be great in terms of facilitating such research. In the meantime, do let me know if you come across anyone else who’s thinking about this stuff.

As for the original question, well, I get the point, and I’m certainly more alarmed by terrorism than I am by the actions of my own government, but I also think that the media’s role in how such fears are formed is huge, and that the risks are frequently over-stated, or worse, misstated entirely.

*****

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.