1--Our Founding Fathers had favorable views toward Islam
2--Thomas Jefferson studied the Qur’an
3--The Obama administration believes that understanding Islam is key to improving the U.S.'s international image
This is quite possibly the emphatic statement by any president about the power of negative stereotypes. And the Muslim case makes the problem with stereotypes clear.
I'd say negative stereotypes have driven most of our domestic policies and many of our foreign policies toward Islam. Why did most Americans support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush's torture policies, Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, airport security restrictions, etc.? Because of irrational fears of Islam based on negative stereotypes.
The same applies to illegal immigrants. Or gays. Why do so many Americans fear them? Because of negative stereotypes. Both groups are going to corrupt our way of life, people think. They're going to turn us into another Sodom and Gomorrah of sin and sloth.
The same applies to Indians. Huge areas of our federal Indian policies--e.g., budget decisions and court cases--are based on stereotypical 19th-century thinking. Namely, that the Europeans "discovered" America. That Indians were savage nomads, not sovereign nations. That we took the land fair and square and don't owe the Indians anything for it.
For more on the subject, see:
Bigots protest brown-skins on 9/11
Conservative bigotry against Islam
All bigotries are similar
Time's "Brief History of Intolerance"
Etc.
Below: Change the names and this could be any American cartoon expressing bigotry against any minority since 1492.
11 comments:
Obama got it right on this.
I see you blocked comment on the Ward Churchill item.
How could you let this one slip?
"To them, Churchill’s most egregious crime was not having died, “like all the other Indians.”"
Churchill is a famous wannabe, and not an actual Indian, after all.
Whether Churchill is native or not matters not to me. Hatred against Natives is an American tradition. What is amazing to me is the fact that Churchills statements do in fact pale compare to the far right and Christian zeal against even the President himself.
Some of the postings on editorials would be deemed threats to national security if they were directed towards Bush a few years ago, how do Americans seem simply oblivious and indifferent about attacks towards Obama, Natives and Churchill reeks of "white privilege" and "acceptable ignorance".
Reminds me of the old newsreels we saw during the Civil Rights movement and just how rabid and hatefilled violent white people were and are.
Burt said:
"Whether Churchill is native or not matters not to me."
You underestimate the problem of whites making fraudelent claims that they are natives for various reasons. Do some research and educate yourself. This blog is a good place to start.
"Some of the postings on editorials would be deemed threats to national security if they were directed towards Bush a few years ago..."
Now this is interesting. Do you have an example of this from a real newspaper? As for Bush, he went through death threats, bogus claims that he was not legally entitled to be in the Presidency, a baseless impeachment charge, and superfluous Nazi insults. Pretty much the same as today.
Dmarks you forget that Bush had something Obama never got and may never get and that is the support of the whole nation and world after 911.
He had an opportunity and blew it!
Bush's presidential legitimacy was never questioned on the scale Obama is dealing with today simply based on his race.
You not only need to do your research about whites speaking for and pretending to be natives, but blacks also. You seem to limit your arguments in a nutshell, perhaps that is as far as your mentality reaches.
Do you know Churchills family and bloodline enough to call him out? Or are you just talking from what your head gathers off of popular media?
Whom really needs to do their research and get educated dmarks?
It seems you know everything about everyone all the time. You should get out more!
"Dmarks you forget that Bush had something Obama never got and may never get and that is the support of the whole nation and world after 911."
How soon you forget. Were you even around during either administration? I remember all the scathing "chickens coming home to roost" letters in the papers saying "we" deserved 9/11.
And then there is the great adoration of the world when Obama was elected.
"Bush's presidential legitimacy was never questioned on the scale Obama is dealing with today simply based on his race."
Actually, the scale was the same. Only the character of it different: the scorched-earth political opportunists mindlessly bashing Bush did not have the race tool to use. They do with Obama.
The same people bashing Bush have not hesitated to use race when it suits their purpose: hence the bashing of Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele over their skin color.
"You not only need to do your research about whites speaking for and pretending to be natives, but blacks also."
Interesting.... I had never heard before of a problem of whites making fake claims that they are blacks. Do you have an authoritative link on this subject that would educate me?
"You seem to limit your arguments in a nutshell, perhaps that is as far as your mentality reaches."
Care you back up your insults with facts?
"Do you know Churchills family and bloodline enough to call him out?"
There is much evidence that this is a hoax, and no evidence that he is any sort of Native. You do realize that it is generally safe to assume a person is NOT an Indian unless there is evidence, don't you?
"Or are you just talking from what your head gathers off of popular media?"
Yeah right, as if he is a major subject in popular media.
"Whom really needs to do their research and get educated dmarks?"
I don't when it comes to Churchill, as I know the facts. It might appear you are going into fairy-tale land again, like with Oswald.
But I do admit that I need education on the major problem of whites making false claims that they are black. I know nothing about this, and I have never said a thing about it.
"It seems you know everything about everyone all the time. You should get out more!"
I certainly know more about Lee Harvey Oswald and Ward Churchill than you do. But it took no special genius on my part: all I did was research.
Everything in a capitalist society is for sale dmarks, information especially. There is the reality we live outside our door, in the streets and apart from our computers dmarks, it sounds like your research is confined to contemporary writers that extend your fairy land beliefs and keep your political pillow fluffed.
You are simply a modern American dmarks, nothing else, and whatever drives the current populists trend, we can bet on your input for the times, but you will never know or understand the real plight of our people.
Most Indians are willing to tell you what tribe they're enrolled with or whom they're descended from if asked. Given all the doubts about Churchill, it's up to him to prove he's an Indian.
The Bush administration criticized the New York Times once or twice for reporting on "sensitive" security matters. For instance:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/time-j28.shtml
But I don't think the administration criticized the NYT for its editorial opinions.
The attacks on Obama are much worse than the attacks on Bush. No one was questioning Bush's religion, citizenship, or loyalty the way they're questioning Obama's.
Thanks Rob! I will make a point to corner Mr. Churchill when I get the opportunity to!
From my understanding, there is a rift between the Cherokee people in Oklahoma between a more traditional group that seeks seperate federal recognition, and the more populated nation that seems to be real chummy with the state government of Oklahoma.
Churchill claimed to be a part of the traditional branch, but since his remarks about 911, both Cherokee entities denied him status, something that does not surprise me with those Oklahoma tribes.
Burt: I'm not big at all on pay-news. So much for the information for sale.
"...contemporary writers".
I think you pulled that one out of thin air.
"...fairy-land beliefs".
Hey, it was you with the nutty Oswald theory. Not me.
Whether you want to believe it or not doesn't matter Dmarks. Since you have never had to deal with the FBI or federal agencies being native, your ignorance is excused, much like fraternity boy mentality.
There is a program called COINTELPRO that you should do some research on. It is the fairy tale you do not want to know where activists and those deemed "subversives" were actively monitored through illegal phone taps and other forms of terrorism reasoned in the name of "national security".
The late John Lennon was harrassed by the FBI. As were AIM leaders, The Black Panther Party and even Martin Luther King.
This "fairy tale" you keep repeating is a means to hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil, even as it remains before you.
Did Bush not spy on US troops calling home from overseas?
Why are you so afraid to talk intelligently about the reality we live in today and remain convinced, your government and its leadership can do no wrong?
Why are you so naive?
Burt: You failed to make any sort of argument. There's not even a mention of Lee Harvey Oswald.
"...the reality we live in today..."
Well, for one thing, Lee Harvey Oswald is not "today". Nor was Lennon or King. And the phony CIA-Oswald theories are not reality. That one is a fairy tale. You are the one sticking to the fiction. I am not.
"and remain convinced, your government and its leadership can do no wrong?"
Caught you in a flat-out lie. I never said this, or showed evidence of it.
You need to learn to stop mixing up fact with fiction. I know all about COINTELPRO. It was REAL. The Oswald theories are not.
"illegal phone taps and other forms of terrorism"
Aha. A brand new definition of terrorism.
Post a Comment