open Democracy News Analysis - history - Comments

jdubow on "The danger of culture talk"

jdubow — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:03:38 +0000

Modern liberal political correctness assigns degrees of correctness based on degrees of victimization by Colonial, all White, bad guys. In the PC world (which exists in parallel to the real world of human experience) women have been oppressed the most and stand at the top of the chain of political worthiness. Blacks are perhaps second and Muslims are also up there. This has unhappy consequences, particularly when recent studies have shown that 90% of the mainstream US media can be classified as being politically correct and almost 95% of Professors in Academia can be so classified. Unfortunately, this reductionist classification of virtue doesn't allow for analyzing the behavior of various pc constituencies in similar circumstances compared to Westen colonial behavior and compared to a detailed analyis of the reqirements of social equilibrium at particular periods of history. One of the worst consequences of Politically Correct (PC) reductionism occurs in discussions of Islam and the Arabs. The PC formulation makes the current problems of Islam and the MIddle East all the fault of those horrible white guys in the West and excuses any reaction, up to and including sexism, racism, murder of civilians and other things that would be loudly condemned in Western nations. Thus the Islamic fundamentalists get the "yagotta understand" treatment that makes George Bush and the US responsible for any and all actions by Islamic fundamentalists. The worse the atrocity, the more blame guilt the US and the West has shoulder. Thus Western media and academics absolve Islam for responsibility for its current state and current actions. The Islamists don't have to take responsibility for changing anything. This is the equivalent of the classic formulation of corrupt and authoritarian regimes-"Show me the person and I'll show you the law". Depending on ones score on the wretchedness scale the degree of responsibility for ones actions can vary from full responsibility to none. In the real world of human experience this isn't the case. Individuals must assume responsibility for their actions and agreements between individuals, groups and societies are in the form of social contracts and not guilt driven submission to the will of people currently committing atrocities but who were wronged by people you don't know or aren't related to. Thus Islam has to take responsibility for actions that would negate the last 500 years of progress in the West, including sacred feminist doctrine, and for doing things that would induce Western support and not opposition. This is precisely what writers and journalists in the West, including the estimable Dr. Tharoor, fail to do. This leads to a dream world where Islamic leaders are led into magical thinking by Western media and intellectuals. A more honest response would be that real humans will require real concessions for real concessions and not just hot air and empty promises that are never audited for degree of fulfillment. This leads to real and strong discussions, but they are at least real and not Disneyland diplomacy. Any discussion of Radical Islam that doesn't include real change and adaptation by Muslims, be it in regard to living in the West or in regard to Israel and in regard to Al Qaeda and Iraq, is Disneyland and, at best, is irrelevant to real world politics and at worst, should PC leaders take over in the West, will lead to bloody showdowns and lots of pain, death and poverty on both sides of the divide.

meta@nmn.be on "The danger of culture talk"

meta@nmn.be — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:16:00 +0100

Belgium's national TV currently runs a series of explorations in the world of Islam entitled 'The Road to Mecca'. As it happens, the narrator starts his trip in Cordoba, not only because the south of Spain provides the closest bridgehead to the Maghreb countries, but also because El Andalus epitomizes islamic civilization at its best. Of course, starting from the heyday sets the rest of the narrative on a definitive track : all that follows, is measured as a degree of loss, insufficiency and lack. Tragically enough however, setting off on adventures from Mecca in the center of the, or the Taj Mahal in the east, would tie the narrator to a similar storyline of fading resonance, and degrading signal-to-noise ratios. It is precisely this dried-up and shrunken quality of islam today that defines the plight of muslims, both at home and in the diaspora. Europa has a great deal to thank Islam for, but since its heyday in the 10th to 12th century, it has not produced any viable political project to date (Hizbullah may embody a valuable oppositional force, just as the Muslim Brotherhood does in Egypt, but as a majority platform it is too reductionist to encompass the complexities of a globalized age); Islam has not produced any science of merit since its medieval contributions to mathematics (the recent divertimento about the do's and don'ts of Islam in space is telling); and the most impressive art is has produced of late is a body of literature that comes from voices who have stepped outside their native islamic frames of reference (and who often paid a high price for it). Both materialist and ideologic/idealist readings of the problem of radical islam today, commit the vital error of absolving Islam from its own embedded possibilities and responsabilities. Both readings thus hand the potential for change either back to 'the west' or the 'good muslim' - who by default exists as the inverted image of the 'bad muslim', both of which are again defined by their relations to a Western style Enlightenment. Abdelwahab Meddeb, in his incredibly erudite and stimulating book 'La Maladie de l'Islam' (Editions du Seuil, 2002) puts it bluntly : muslims need to enroll in a refreshment course of all the historic exceptions and infringements of the islamic tradition BY the islamic tradition. He provides ample examples of creative, pro-active and universalist, mystical even, reorderings of the central beliefs in Islam. For the record, Meddeb equally appeals to the West to come to terms with its denial and denigration of Islam. I agree. But I also believe that this coming to terms will not happen while the West paternalistically refrains from criticizing Islam, or expressing its own values. In that respect, the examples of the veil and the cartoon-crisis should not be lumped together in the same boxing glove to hit Islam with. The cartoon-crisis quite pointedly demonstrated that the political will of the West to protect free speech against collective silencing is feeble at best. The subsequent juggling act surrounding an anounced (but forbidden) 'protest against islamization' in Brussels on September 11th - widely commented upon in the international press - only serves to underscore the point. The veil is a different matter. The multiplicity of meanings embedded in the wearing of the veil warrants careful deliberation. The problem here is mainly that ad hoc cases have captured a lot of media attention so far, while a fundamental judicial debate and settlement is lacking. Apologists of Islam invariably invoke the variety of 'islams' that is being practiced worldwide. That may very well be, but this diversity exists largely behind thick curtains of conformity - at least when it comes to projecting its self-image to non-muslims. The crux of the matter is that Islam as practised by its multitude of followers worldwide, has developed only a very slim tolerance of criticism, if at all. Islam - it seems - does not know how to distinguish between ridicule, cynicism and legitimate criticism. Islam must develop its own radical critique, if it is to step out of the shadows of its own demons. To an important extent then, parasitic extremism must indeed be countered by and through the culture it feeds off.

turkmeneli kerkuk on "Attacking the victims"

turkmeneli kerkuk — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:56:18 +0100

lets get things right. can any body even claim Turkmen for any of several anti-democratic or any "terror flirt " act like Kurdish politician can easily be juged for??? what a pro Saddam - wanna be writer - says is the only critic there could be made against Turkmen. best regards

Peter Travels on "Attacking the victims"

Peter Travels — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:13:20 +0100

After reading Xulam’s response to Jerjis, I found myself returning once more to Jerjis’ article, feeling that I may have missed something, or perhaps read the wrong article. But I had not. Nowhere could I find what Xulam called “a longing, albeit unstated, for the good old days of Saddam Hussein and his bloodthirsty thugs.” Instead, I found several stated references which clearly show the opposite: • Calling for the return of those “forcefully deported” under the Baath regime • “The return of land confiscated by the Ba'ath Regime” • “The resettlement of the approximately 270,000 Arabs who were brought into Kerkuk by Saddam Hussein's Arabification policy”, and • Condemning “decades of manipulation, distortion and lack of reliable Kerkuk population and census registers” – a clear reference to the Baath regime. No serious and objective reader could possibly confuse the above statements for a sick longing for Saddam and his thugs. Xulam argues that Jerjis should put the “the wrongs of Saddam Hussein under the microscope alongside those of the Kurds, if the latter ask for more than their fair share.” But why should he? We are all aware of Saddam’s horrible misrule, and as Jerjis clearly makes the case, Turkmen today are more harmed by Kurdish encroachment, now that Saddam is in his grave. It is not to say that one is worse than the other, but rather, neither is good enough. If Xulam is truly concerned about human rights, then he should assess Jerjis’ claims, which are plenty, “under the microscope, alongside those of” international human rights standards, and nothing less. Xulam wonders whether Jerjis is aware of the Arabs that were moved to Kirkuk by Saddam. But I had no such questions. Because I read Jerjis’ piece carefully, I could see that he has heard of them, and indeed calls for their resettlement, all 270,000 of them – a figure that he provides. Xulam takes Jerjis to task for “fuzzy analysis”. I would take Xulam to task for fuzzy reading. Furthermore, Jerjis does not state that “The Kurds were the only supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq”, as Xulam would have us believe. Instead, Jerjis states that “Kurdish political actors are almost the only supporters of occupation in the region”, using the present tense, and without reference to the invasion. Xulam’s unnecessary history lesson about Chalabi and Al-Hakim, one we’re all acquainted with, is therefore rendered irrelevant. Xulam then proceeds to call the January 2005 elections as the “fairest and the freest in the history of Iraq”, as if that would negate Jerjis’ legitimate claims about electoral fraud, including “an estimated 228,000 irregular votes”. Despite Jerjis’ extensive catalogue of allegations that Kurds have essentially overtaken Kirkuk’s administrative structure and marginalized other communities, Xulam lectures Jerjis about finding “common ground in shaping the future of the city.” One would have expected Xulam to lecture his fellow Kurds about good governance first. Either way, the first step in finding common ground, Mr Xulam, would be for you to read Jerjis’ article once more, and understand his concerns fully, instead of writing such a flawed critique, or accusing him of subscribing to the conspiracy theories of west Asia.

John Marzan on "Determining factors"

John Marzan — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:15:55 +0100

Quote:

Muslims constitute only 5% of the total population of the Philippines, but are in the majority in stretches of Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago.

He's right. Muslims constitute 5% of the total population of the Philippines, AND constitute only 20.4% of the population in Mindanao (based on 2000 census, and i don't think these figures have changed that much from 2000 to 2007). But yes, they are the majority "in stretches of Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago." And by recognizing that fact, the Philippine gov't tried to settle that with the MNLF with the 1996 Peace Plan.

Quote:

[The independent Philippines only continued the policy of encouraging Christian migration into Mindanao (to the extent that Muslims are now in the minority on the island), leading to an escalation of communal tensions and, after the Jabidah massacre under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, the outbreak of armed rebellion and civil war in the 1970s between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the military along with its levied Christian militias. At least 65,000 people have been killed in the conflict since then.]

I don't know if the RP gov't encouraged Christians to settle in Mindanao, but I do know the Philippines have a very high birth rate. And I've never heard of or seen any RP gov't policy of genocide or making refugees out of Mindanao Muslims--like wipe out a population in the area to allow christian filipinos to settle the land. Sure, there were atrocities from the military under marcos, but there were also atrocities and terrorist acts conducted by the MNLF and MILF on civilian populations. To my mind, the solution to the Mindanao problem is very simple. Hold a referendum on Mindanao (read #10, and yeah, like East Timor) , and the results should be respected by Muslim and Christian counterparts. And no more breakaway MNLF, MILF, MWLF, MZLF groups. But I'm afraid the MILF won't accept the offer because, they'll only get approximately 20% of Mindanao, and obviously, that's not good enough.

KVB Tharoor on "Britain's terror trials"

KVB Tharoor — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:23:23 +0100

Thanks for your intervention, I fully sympathise with your position. At the same time, it is worth keeping in mind that the courts are quite active in the country, and independently so (something a military tribunal can't really be), and that they, by-and-large, are quite meticulous in their judgements (against overwhelming media and public sentiments, two of the suspected 21/7 bombers were not convicted). Tackling terrorism as a criminal phenomenon while upholding the rule of law is a tricky process, full of potential pitfalls and blunders. It merits our attention as well as our cynicism, but not our rejection.

nick_myst on "Britain's terror trials"

nick_myst — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:06:27 +0100

nicely packaged background... though I don't think the UK has that much to be proud of, being better than the Bush Administration isn't exactly something to write home about.