Translate


Friday, April 16, 2010

What's Not Happening to American Muslims by Dorothy Rabinowitz


Tom Hanks-boob

What's Not Happening to American Muslims
DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
Wall Street Journal

(Tip of the hat to Tony Mazeika of the Mazeika Report for sending me this article)

The below article by Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal not only hits the nail on the head but is quite timely-especially for one of the main themes of my blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It can't have come as a surprise that one of the now entrenched myths about America—namely, its ongoing victimization of Muslims—should have been voiced again by a leading citizen of our myth-producing capital, Hollywood. The citizen was Tom Hanks, and the occasion his March interview in Time Magazine in which he declared that our battle with Japan in World War II was one of "racism and terror." And that, he noted, should remind us of our current wars.

The comments caused a furor. But Mr. Hanks, who had made them during a publicity tour—he's the producer of the HBO series, "The Pacific"—saw the issue in perfectly clear terms, which he went on to explain several times more in subsequent media appearances. We can only ponder the joy this must have brought to the hearts of HBO executives.

The Hanks mini-seminar was only one of the many distortions of our still unbearably raw recent history—never mind World War II—encouraging Americans to view themselves as oppressors and racists. The latest reflection of this trend, grown steadily since the attacks of Sept. 11, came with a three-page spread in the Washington Post on March 24 about the tribulations of a Muslim soldier who reported being subjected to slurs, various other insults, and also a threatening note. His commander suggested he might do well to move to housing off base. The base in question was Fort Hood, where, last November, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow American soldiers.

The pain of these confrontations was undoubtedly great, as such treatment always is. Ask the members of religious and racial minorities who served, say, in World War II, when it wasn't unusual to hear slurs like "kike" and such hurled at them. Ask black Americans who had the incomparably worse experience of serving in a racially segregated military, where they were relegated to the worst duties. Not to mention being made witness—in parts of the country—to the sight of German POWs held in the U.S. eating in restaurants barred to black Americans in uniform, and otherwise being accorded respect that those Americans could not hope to receive.

Still, there were no instances of those enduring this treatment undertaking mass murder of other American servicemen. There was rage, and there were some riots, but no cases of U.S. soldiers enlisting in the service of the enemy as Maj. Hasan had. (Hasan, it was explained after he had cut down those unarmed servicemen and women packed into that room in Ft. Hood, had suffered prejudice-related pressures as a Muslim in the armed services.)

There were, in World War II, no watchdog groups like the ones cited in the Washington Post story, no agencies keeping lists of harassment complaints, or name-calling suffered by members of the U.S. military, or of the number of soldiers, like those mentioned in the story, who called crying on the phone. There were back then plenty of officers given to convenient cover-ups. But, it's a good bet, few like Maj. Hasan's superiors—so addled by raised consciousness and worries about appearing insensitive to Muslims in the service that they ignored even the most extreme expressions of his enmity to the United States and its military, his praise of suicide bombers, his jihadi contacts.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Maj. Nidal Hasan was the recipient of too much sympathy.
Since the events of Sept. 11, we've seen the growth of a view that American Muslims became prime victims of those terror attacks—isolated, fearful, targets of hostility. President George W. Bush, who went to Washington D.C's Islamic Center a few days after the terror assaults, told his audience that Islam was about peace and warned that the nation's Muslims must be free to go about without fear or intimidation by other Americans—remarks he doubtless thought were called for under the circumstances.

It had not, of course, been necessary to remind Americans of who they were and were not. No menacing hordes, then or later, ever threatened American Muslims—and it has been an insult to the nation to have been lectured to the same way after every attempted terror attack, as though wild mobs of citizens might actually run through the streets attacking Muslims. Even as the ruins of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon still smoldered, countless Americans had reached out to their Muslim neighbors to reassure them.

No matter. Every report of any activity bearing resemblance to anti-Muslim sentiment became, in short order, essential news. Every actual incident, every report of a nasty sign, fitted the all-consuming theme taken up by large sectors of mainstream media: that the country's Muslims were now hapless targets, not only of the national rage at the atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, but also of racism. It was a view especially well in accord with those of a generation schooled in colleges and universities where pathological extremes of sensitivity to claims of racial, religious or sexual insult or charges of gender bias are considered perfectly normal and right.

Reporters ran with the theme in part because the media's appetite for victim stories of any kind is inexhaustible. But this was, in addition, the kind journalists pride themselves on as socially responsible. It was also one that didn't lack for willing subjects. For American Muslims in considerable numbers apparently subscribed to the view that theirs was the abiding suffering that had been inflicted by the 9/11 attacks. There was no missing the steady supply of Muslims available to tell inquiring reporters of their feelings of alienation and persecution.

Each FBI terrorist sting that went awry or seemed to, each wild goose chase of a home-grown jihadi threat, spurred a new portrait of besieged American Muslims. When such plots turned out to be true, and their threat enormous—most recently in the case of Najubullah Zazi, a jihadist who planned to set explosives off in the New York subway—the portrait and the theme remained the same. Since alienated American Muslims were forced to live in fear as second-class citizens, it was explained, more and more of them chose extremism and violence. In short, whether the charges of terrorist activity were false or whether they were true, American society was to blame.


There are other faces of Muslim America. Five years or so after the terrorists drove their planes and passengers into the twin towers and the Pentagon, a cab driver from Pakistan remarked, as we drove past the rubble where the towers had stood, that he could never pass this place without trying to see them again in his mind. A painful effort, for all that it brought back. What was not painful, he added, was the memory of certain people in his neighborhood—a mixed but mostly white area of Queens, with many Italian-Americans, some Jews, and he thought some Irish. After the attacks, some of the men had come to him.

"My wife doesn't go out without a head cover," he explained. The men had come to tell him that if anyone bothered her, or his family, he must come to them.

"I must tell them and must not be afraid. Do you know," he said, in a voice suddenly sharp, "what would have happened if Americans had done this kind of attack in my country? Every American—every Christian, every non-Muslim—would have been slaughtered, blood would have run in the streets. I know the kind of country this is. Thanks be to God I can give this to my children."

Countless American Muslims would, like generations of immigrants of all kinds, say the same. Theirs, of course, is not the face of Muslim America suitable for the continuing chronicle of the victimized American Muslim."

Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board, is the author of "No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusations, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times" (Free Press, 2003).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Ms Rabinowitz illustrates, Americans have-with markedly few exceptions-acted in an exemplary fashion toward Muslims in this country since 9-11. When documented cases of harassment have occurred, I have condemned them. Yet, we have still gotten a bad rap from the likes of Hollywood boob Tom Hanks. Hanks is wrong to compare today's American Muslims with the plight of West Coast Japanese Americans, who were interned during World War II-a tragic mistake and miscarriage of justice that has not been visited upon our Muslims.

Does that mean we should not speak out against extremism, violence, intolerance and hate when it comes from Islamic quarters? Hell no. I will continue to speak out about those things because they are real. We cannot ignore the peril of terrorism and creeping shariah in the West, which must be confronted. We cannot, as the Obama administration would have us, pretend that the threat is coming from some abstract quarter with no name. At the same time, while exposing the radical voices in America, we must protect our innocent Muslim citizens from attacks. Organizations like CAIR would have us believe that we are not doing a good job of it. I disagree and will continue to question CAIR's motives. In spite of all their bragging and chest-pounding, they are doing precious little to help the situation in America.

Kudos to Dorothy Rabinowitz. And kudos to that Pakistani cab driver in New York.

7 comments:

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I'm curious to read Hanks' full quote. This author is really extrapolating quite a bit from that one little bit.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

I saw a video clip of Hanks several weeks ago drawing a parellel between post 9-11 and the internment/relocation of Japanese Americans.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

What did he say though? Did he say that it was the same thing? Or did he, like others, simply say that we need to make sure that we don't wind up making the same mistake? That would be a fair point.

Gary Fouse said...

He made a definite parellel. It was along the lines of post 9-11 bringing back memories of the internment

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Okay, I just read the entire interview, and this is a complete distortion of what he said. Here's the relevant portion:

Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?

Rabinowitz not only doesn't hit the nail on the head, she isn't even using a hammer. I mean, she's not wrong about what she says, but it has nothing to do with the point that he was trying to make.

I can't comment on the video clip that you're referring to.

By the way, have you seen Band of Brothers? It's excellent. I haven't seen The Pacific yet, but I definitely want to check it out considering that's where my grandfather fought.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

Well, it appears Hanks has made reference to this issue several times. How many interviews do we have to review.

Thye point is that Muslims have not been rounded up and put in internment camps. They are not bieng persecuted-nor should they be. However, there are a lot of aspects to this world-wide terror problem that are worthy of open discussion.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Well, it appears Hanks has made reference to this issue several times. How many interviews do we have to review.

The article you posted cited the March interview from Time. I figure looking up that one is the only one I needed.

Thye point is that Muslims have not been rounded up and put in internment camps. They are not bieng persecuted-nor should they be. However, there are a lot of aspects to this world-wide terror problem that are worthy of open discussion.

This is not something with which I disagree, but it's arguing something that he was not even trying to say.

I'm starting to think that 50% of "conservatism" involves being outraged at things that people never even said to begin with.