There
are lines between fashion, fawning, and fear. They're almost
invisible, so you don't always know when you're crossing them. And
there are times when they become irrelevant – it doesn't matter
what the motive is, as long as the action is suitable. Now is one of
those times.
Several
decades ago – it's not clear when – it became fashionable to
substitute euphemisms for the terminology that most people used.
Whether it began with “gender neutrality” or in response to other
perceived slights, political correctness became the answer selected
to deal with the hurt feelings.i
It was trendy to speak of postal workers instead of mailmen, Native
Americans instead of (American) “Indians,” Afro-Americans rather
than blacks – at least in this country, “special needs” as an
alternative to mental or physical disability, and visually challenged
rather than blind. And there were many other terms – some
facetious – to describe individuals or groups that might object to
existing terminology. Short people were “vertically challenged,”
deaf people were “hearing impaired,” and French Fries became
Freedom Fries.
It
may have begun as a fad, with the “correct” people as examples
for the rest of us, but it soon became virtually mandatory. The
practice of using the new jargon became an attempt to ingratiate
ourselves with everyone and those who didn't follow the trend were
considered insensitive and prejudiced. It was, and is, especially
prevalent in academiaii
– in its practices and in its publications. They were catering to
anyone who might be offended by something someone said or did.iii
Well, not “anyone,” but to certain groups. It was again a
matter of fashion. For a long time the catering was to blacks, and
one of its major manifestations was affirmative action. The tool has
been applied to other groups as well – women, the poor, people from
particular areas.iv
Fear
came into play when some of those groups took offense to something
they viewed as a manifestation of prejudice or blasphemy and
responded with violence. The tactic was often effective, and
following the publication in Denmark of cartoons that many Muslims
viewed as blasphemous there was rioting and killing. Out of fear,
many newspapers would not reproduce the cartoons to prevent the
violence from affecting them. Yale University Press would not allow
their inclusion in a book specifically about them.v
Ever
since the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, anger at Muslims,
and fear as well, have been increasing. So has our vigilance. But
the response to increased security efforts – a response by
non-Muslims as well as Muslims – is that they represent
Islamophobia and should be discontinued.
The
recent events in Paris and elsewhere in Europe, suggest that
preoccupation with the Danish cartoons and those of a Paris magazine
justify additional violence. And there have been numerous other
terrorist incidents around the globe, including the United States.
One common feature of such terrorism is that the perpetrators are
almost invariably Muslims.vi
And the attacks do not have to be aimed at those seen as the
attackers of Islam. They are aimed at terror, and unpredictability
is a feature of terrorism. And they are justified by the belief that
there are Islamophobes everywhere.
But
what is Islamophobia and is it justified? A phobia is a fear. It is
not opposition or hatred. As such, it may be justified. “Anti-”
signifies such opposition, and often hated. Someone with acrophobia
is afraid of heights. An antisemite hates Jews. So Islamophobia is
not a manifestation of an anti-Muslim philosophy, but a fear of
Muslims and of the religion that teaches its children and its adults
that killing, and dying as martyrs, are worthy goals.
Is
it irrational to be afraid of those who may be infected with this
philosophy as we are afraid of those with an infections disease?
That's all Islamophobia is. And to that degree Islam is winning. It
is inspiring fear in many people who realize that a terrorist attack
may come at any time, and if it does, it will most likely be caused
by a Muslim. The fear may be irrational and the likelihood of harm
may be overstated, but that fear is caused by those who are working
to provoke this reaction.
I
am not anti-Muslim. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims,
whatever their personal concerns about the world around them, do not
represent a threat. But a few do. And they are unpredictable. And
I am afraid.
I Actually
the term was used much earlier, although it's original citation (see
Chisholm
v. Georgia,
2 U.S. {2 Dall.} 419, 1793) gives it a straightforward meaning,
speaking of conformance with existing political doctrine.
ii Most
recently, Duke University wanted to let Muslim students use the
tower of the church on campus for heir call to prayer. After
protests the decision was revoked.
iii Those
who opposed this form of censorship were considered reactionaries
and right wing crazies for their criticism of this form of
censorship.
iv Affirmative
action has a long history, apart from its use racially. For
example, donors and alumni get preference when it comes to college
admissions and veterans often get extra points in examinations for
jobs.
v See
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=0
The report in the New York Times is interesting since the “Gray
Lady” also kept the cartoons off its pages.
vi Jews
have been described as the world's canaries. What happens to them
will ultimately be visited on everyone. (A recent citation – one
of many that have appeared over the years – is
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Canary-in-the-coal-mine-387914)
Muslims have long tried to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Now their
terror attacks are affecting others.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.