| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| The Scapegoats Among Us |
| 2007-01-26 |
| Full multi-page article at link from Policy Review. ...The need to blame To identify primal fear as the denominator common to the anti-American scapegoating now emanating from some quarters in Europe is not to suggest anything like sinister intent. The same is true of the pundits who have made a different industry of scapegoating in the U.S. All have their reasons, and the overriding reason is an obvious one. There is something deeply human about the desire to find all the things scapegoats can provide: a vessel to bear one's anxieties and outrages, a target that won't hit back, a welcome distraction from the real thing. On the positive side of the ledger, the threat of Islamism as a problem within the West and not merely emanating from outside it is indeed beginning to get the airing it deserves, at least in the United States. The appearance of the Phillips, Berlinski, and Bawer books is one sign, as are other serious treatments now in the works. So is the attention the subject now garners in news and commentary that comes largely (though not exclusively) from the right. On the negative side, the record of ideas from the last few years also suggests that we too need to keep our guard up. That is why the appearance of scapegoating since 9/11 bears watching all its own: because freedom can be curtailed one baby step at a time, and fuzzy ideas about reality only accelerate them. Who would have guessed 20 years ago that by 2006, a Norwegian man eating lunch in the restaurant beneath the parliament would be asked to remove his jacket because the Star of David on it is now considered a "provocation"? Or that German cultural authorities at a flagship opera would opt for pre-emptive self-censorship? Getting from here to there had to start small: One pulled punch at a time in a newspaper editorial, one more act of omission in calling a spade a club, one more clever set of reasons for why something that is not the obvious thing is really the menace that walks among us. As for what looking into reality requires of us if we are not to take refuge in scapegoats, it is no wonder that the temptation to look elsewhere continues strong. The real thing was apparently on near-perfect display in Amsterdam at Theo van Gogh's murder trial, where according to Ian Buruma the murderer Bouyeri finally broke his silence to address van Gogh's mother as follows: He wanted her to know that he didn't kill her son because he [Theo] was Dutch, or because he, Mohammed, felt insulted as a Moroccan. Theo was no hypocrite, he continued, for he had simply spoken his mind. "So the story that I felt insulted as a Moroccan, or because he called me a goat f——r, that is all nonsense. I acted out of faith. And I made it clear that if it had been my own father, or my little brother, I would have done the same thing . . . if I were ever released, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same." In the face of a reality like that, who wouldn't rather pin the tail of "our most pressing issue" on some other donkey — Spanish-speaking illegals, right-wing Christians, George Bush, Israel and the Jews, even and ultimately America itself? The deformation of political truth to avoid recognition of the Islamist threat which is one of its current defining features is a normal response to an abnormally terrible fact. Unfortunately, that does not make it any less inimical to freedom. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #7 I think the author misses the point about anti-immigration sentiment... I read this, or something very like it, a few weeks ago, and it seemed to me that the author was trying desperately to find scapegoats of the right to match those of the left, so as to appear even-handed. I read a lot of righty blogs, and I don't hear anywhere near the hysteria that the author seems to find, just a disgust with the government for not enforcing its own damned laws. So either she's reaching, or y'all are not the right-wing death-beasts you thought you were. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2007-01-26 19:44 |
| #6 Exactly, BA. The law-abiding aspect and the linguistic unity aspect also are important. Like you said, in their shoes, I would try to escape my terrible circumstances. I'm sure they don't appreciate our view of the "rule of law" aspect, if for no other reason than that "law" in Mexico is so soluble with its bribes and so inescapable in its questionable convictions, it has little in common with our understanding of the word. Ah well, I'll let it go and return to the thread's topic. I actually saw a couple non-Americans stand up for the US on a BBC blog the other day-it was truly surprising. That site is nearly wall to wall US hatred. |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-01-26 11:31 |
| #5 Jules, you are right about the economic-impact intent behind the "anti-illegal" backlash against the Beltway. But, I'd also add, there are a LOT of us out there that disagree with it, just because it's our laws. Listen, I can NOT blame them for doing their darndest to cross the Rio Grande, in search of a better life. I DO fault the gov't for not enforcing the law, and for having silly policies (like "Catch and Release") that could result in jihadis (not just Mexicans) entering with intents to do us harm. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-01-26 11:02 |
| #4 A very interesting read, thanks 3dc for posting it. I think the author misses the point about anti-immigration sentiment in the US today. It doesn't have anything to do with "brown-skinned" immigrants; it has to do with real or perceived economic threat as numbers surge. Ask a few Germans about the economic impact of joining Eastern and Western Germany; they get it. "No, perhaps the anti-Americanism of today is best understood instead as a way of being furious in public with somebody for the insecurities and anxieties wrought by Islamist terrorism in this world, including in increasingly Muslim Europe — an option made even more attractive by the safe bet that Americans, unlike some other people, are unlikely to respond to this rhetoric, let alone to editorial cartoons, by burning cars, slitting throats, or issuing death threats in places like Paris and Amsterdam and Regensburg and London." It is astonishing to me, though, that Europeans, frightened and unhinged as they may be, prefer to scapegoat the US (the one country that presents Europe with a real chance of countering the threat) over forgetting pride, holding their noses and helping America make sure that an undefeatable force-"Islamism"-doesn't cause their beloved countries to disappear forever. I guess, like the Palestinians, they have their choices to make. If helping America is so distasteful, they will choose the "Hamas" way and precipitate their own despair and loss, but will keep the "pride" derived from their anti-Americanism. |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-01-26 10:09 |
| #3 That is a money quote, Ptah. Nice find! |
| Posted by: BA 2007-01-26 10:02 |
| #2 Thank you so much, 3dc. An excellent article that I feel is well balanced and addresses a meta-issue that makes many of the loose pieces of the puzzle fall into place. For instance, her going after SOME elements of the anti-illegal immigrant issue is spot-on: she points out that SOME of them talk as if illegal immigration is a greater danger to the Republic than Radical Islam. yet, she does not tar EVERYONE concerned with Illegal immigrants with the same broad brush, but does point out that, when weighed in the scales of danger, poor catholic mexicans crossing the border to get jobs pose a lesser threat than Islamists posing as students while planning terrorist attacks. A problem, yes. The BIGGEST problem we're facing? No way. I found that helpful. Here's a great quote: In sum, just as the paleoconservative and nativist wings of the right appear to have channeled the anxiety of the post-9/11 years into one relatively safe scapegoat — largely Hispanic illegal immigrants — so have the libertarians and some liberal allies fingered their own culprit in the “theocrats,” “Christocrats,” “Christianists,” and “Christian nationalists.” At the heart of their case is an obnoxious positing of moral equivalence among “fundamentalists” and “theocrats” irrespective of religious stripe. Accordingly, anyone believing anything based on any holy writ whatever is suspect, no matter whether the message being received is that two hundred babes must die in Chechnya tomorrow or that two hundred trees should be planted in Tel Aviv by Texan evangelicals to hasten the second coming. As with the example of illegal immigration, this rhetoric all makes perfect sense — or would in a world where Jerry Falwell calls down fatwas on NARAL, the 700 Club sends suicide bombers into the Key West Fantasy Fest, and Richard John Neuhaus posts death warrants on ewtn whenever he wants the members of Moveon.org decapitated. This goes into my list of "articles to cite to prove my point". |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-01-26 09:45 |
| #1 Not I. In the face of reality like that, I find Ian Buruma and only Ian Buruma guilty of the murder of Theo van Gogh. Islam was his motive. He still clings to his reason to kill, so he must be made an example. What's so confusing about it ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-26 09:40 |