Why The Right Is Wrong On Ft. Hood

This week marks the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street, a cultural icon of public television. The significance of this milestone is evident with the appearance of our first lady, Michelle Obama, on the legendary show. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street, I am reminded of the nostalgic time of my youth when this type of television programming contributed to the lives of Americans. I grew up in the neighborhoods of Chicago, attended public schools with African-Americans, and those of European, Asian, and Hispanic descent. I remember my parents attending neighborhood potlucks where we met Koreans and Puerto Ricans for the first time. To us, the America of those days was a true cultural melting pot.

To me and many others, Sesame Street made total sense; it reminded us of the diversity of our social environment. But it also brought home the importance of a multicultural society in America. It showed how people with names like Morgan, Maria, Jose, Felix, Ernie, Oscar, and even Big Bird can live on the same street and love one another, despite their racial and cultural differences. Sesame Street also introduced me to some legendary musicians such as Stevie Wonder, who even performed his enduring classic "Superstition" on the show. No doubt the virtues of diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance, the arts, and brotherly love mark the highlights of Sesame Street.

Unfortunately, these same virtues are once again coming under attack by an untamed radicalism disguised as conservative patriotism. The tragic murders of military personnel at Ft. Hood by an American Muslim have given fodder to the most pathetic elements of xenophobic and provincial nationalism not seen in years. Most surprisingly, the restraint and reasonable response of military leaders such as General Casey, President Obama, other political leaders, as well as most mainstream media, is being rejected in the deep caverns of conservative talk radio, radical Christian commentary, and of course unhinged Fox News, as a cover-up, and liberal "political correctness" gone mad. Even mainstream pundits are joining the mobbing of a religion and its faithful. Their main charge: the liberal establishment is failing to recognize and admit that Islam is to blame for what occurred at Ft. Hood last week.

I will not insult the readers of this post by dignifying the ridiculous claim that a religion can cause murder or even save a life. The last time I checked, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Quran, and the Vedas have never committed homicide or suicide. To the contrary, only adherents of a particular faith engage in acts of violence or benevolence. So, let us dispense with the childish game of which religion or scripture is better or worse, and prone to more violence.

Moreover, it is willful amnesia and a contradiction of recent history to chronically refer to Muslim violence despite the recent invasions of Muslim nations including Bush's misguided and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq with the official Iraqi civilian death toll now at 85,000 and with other credible estimates as high as 655,000. Let us not forget the genocide of 800,000 people in Rwanda where over 90% of the population is Christian, the attempted genocide against Bosnian Muslims at the hands of Orthodox Serbs, and the massacre of over 2,000 Muslims by Hindu militants in India in 2002. Therefore, the assertion that Muslims are more predisposed to violence than other people of faith is logically absurd, and historically fallacious.

Indeed, it is far too juvenile to paint the events at Ft. Hood into a framework of "us versus them", "good and evil", "You're either with us or against us." As noted Christian author James Allison writes:

"cheap meaning is always derived by positioning oneself over against some "other" considered to be wicked. Cheap meaning makes life apparently exciting in the short term; it seems to give a purpose, but in fact it is a mirage, an illusion. There is nothing that can ultimately substitute for the long, slow, patient task of being brought into being as a human."

An addiction to cheap meanings such as the Manichean explanations of human behavior for violence is illusory and fails to account for the complexity of human conduct. In other words, the inherent right-wing tendency to look for simple and bigoted explanations for human behavior extraneous to European and Christian civilization is fatal to the search for truth and knowledge.

Recall that within weeks of the terrible events of 9/11, right-wing and conservative organizations and websites were infesting the American landscape with an effort to scapegoat those they deemed responsible. Their targets were not only Islam, but also liberal ideology, which they sought to eradicate from the academy, politics, and the media. Their apparent strategy was to uncover the liberal biases in "left wing" colleges and universities, and to take Hollywood and the liberal media to task for its weak moral foundation, and their perceived tolerance of terrorists.

Back then, I found it strange that this rabid ideology was attacking the civic virtues of multiculturalism, tolerance, patience, and critical higher education in the context of terrorism. Despite the well-established fact that al-Qaida attacked the United States because of its grievances against the U.S. for its intervention in the Middle East and support for Israel, and not due to jealousy or hate of freedom, or tolerance, patience, multiculturalism, civil rights, or political correctness, right-wing ideologues speciously pinned the blame on liberalism and Islam. After the national shock of Sept. 11, it was manifestly obvious that these ideological militants were exploiting the outrage and grief suffered by this nation by making incongruous links which were largely imaginative, but politically motivated.

After the historical debacle of the US invasion of Iraq, the Democratic victories of 2006 and 2008, and the historic election of Barack Obama, many neo-conservatives and right wing lunatics had gone dormant. But now, they have once again been swiftly unleashed by the criminal events at Ft. Hood, Texas last week.

The present day right wingers, aided and abetted by the conservative media and Republican politicians, are using the tragic deaths of our soldiers and the suffering of their families to further poison their political base with a toxic brew of religious bigotry, cultural fears, anger, and revenge, cultivating a false sense of patriotism, and taking aim at the liberal world for being too soft on the real culprits. These are the same folks who have questioned President Obama's citizenship, used bullying and thuggish tactics at political rallies against Healthcare Reform this summer, accused this country of becoming socialist, and continuously pressed for adventurous militarism with tax- payer dollars at a time of economic distress.

One would hope that the Sesame Street themes of tolerance, withholding judgment, brotherhood and neighborliness would be welcomed by patriotic Americans of all backgrounds. Yet, these are the very same virtues that are now being attacked and threatened by the increasing right-wing militancy in the United States. Liberals, progressives, moderates and sane conservatives must not allow these fanatical folks to set the political agenda and to further misguide well-intentioned Americans back into the shameful experiences of Jim Crow segregation, Japanese internment camps, or of the 2002 pogroms in India, and genocide in the Balkans in the 1990s.

Prudence, patience, moderation should be maintained while the investigation of the Ft. Hood murders is completed by law enforcement officials, not Sean Hannity or Michelle Malkin. The investigation may lead to the suspect's ideological views, religious influences, or his lack of mental capacity. But no matter the outcome, we should not permit right-wing hooliganism, whether it stems from the media, the halls of Congress, or from extremist pulpits, to dictate how we view tragedies and interpret human beings with cultures and religions separate from our own. We all need to be reminded periodically of the civic virtues from Sesame Street.

 

Comments

[Philclock]

Mr. Nizzamudin:

All your labels are really confusing: hooliganism, diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, the arts, untamed radicalism, political conservatism, nut cases,etc. You and I could sit across the table and arrive at different definitions for each one of these vague terms.

But what we probably can agree on is that human nature and human behavior and interaction has a fairly constant thread of normal and threatening behavior, regardless of "markings", ie; race, creed, color, sex, gender, size, religious affiliation, group affiliation (EG a particular club or organized "gang") and perhaps a few other categories I'm missing.

Part of government protecting society is recognizing threatening behavior and confronting it before becoming a danger to others. Again regardless of race, creed, etc.

Your labels may or may not help identify such behavior; however, they do not in and of themselves cause the behavior, and are relevant insofar as they correlate with a database of others with similar behavior who have similar markings.

But to preclude such markings is dangerous in itself for the rest of us.

I am not a psychiatrist or anthropologist; I am simply attempting to elicit "common sense" when protecting my home.

[Rourke]

The elephant in the room is not religion per se, but fundamentalist religion. Such strict adherence to an ancient text, be it the Koran or the Bible, from a time when brutal violence and intolerance were cultural norms should be widely condemned. I don't think some fundamentalist Christians here in America would behave that much differently than some radicalized Muslims if put in similar circumstances.

[leftorright]

This is a great article. As a secularist, I am astounded by how much far-right religious leaders and commentators act like sales people, waiting for an event like this to convince the greater populace that their particular religion is the only true and just one. It's opportunism at its most despicable.

[tyruler]

An excellent analysis and post. I thoroughly enjoyed it and highly recommend it to every intellectual and layman brainwashed by hate radio's open anti-Muslim bigotry thats akin to anti-Semit­ism...just that its Muslims and not Jews who are taking the stereotypical onslaught of their faith.

To have Hasan responsible for everything Islam should mean we should also investigate his ties to the military which runs much more deep which coincidentally Tim McVeigh also had deep ties to. Therefore lets investigate the Army.

Here's a quick rundown;
Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was a United States Army veteran and security guard who was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, the second anniversary of the Waco Siege, as revenge or to inspire a revolt against what he considered a tyrannical federal government. The bombing killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

He was a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star. He had been a top-scoring gunner for the U.S. 1st Infantry Division to which he was assigned. He served at Fort Riley, Kansas, before Operation Desert Storm. At Fort Riley, McVeigh completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC). McVeigh later would say that the Army taught him how to switch off his emotions.

[Tim303]

Composer Bela Bartok demanded to be included in the Exhibition of Degenerate Art of 1937. Likewise all sane people should demand to be on these guys' shote lists. Safety in numbers.

[langej]

Religion is no lover of consistency. It is said that Hasan had problems with killing fellow Muslims: this doesn't seem to cause a problem for Al Qaeda, the Taliban or the Mahdi Army, who have killed more Muslims than all of the western forces put together. Nor did Christian charity and the 6th commandment stop the IRA and UDF from murdering each other.

The difficulty is while a small minority of racist fanatics have tried to hijack Islam, the vast majority of Muslims have stayed silent - pronouncing no fatwas or jihads against the fanatics who deliberately misinterpret of the Koran to further their own quest for power and control.

Although Hasan pulled the trigger, I suspect we will find a bigoted Imam built him, if not actually set him off. That these perverters of one of the great religions of the world are allowed to operate with impunity implies some complicity from their co-religionists. For evil to triumph, all that is necessary is that good men do nothing.

Indeed, the situation is similar to the KKK and the deep south: legal suppression was ineffective until the general populace stopped feeding them with apathy and silence. A reasonable analogy, since the only difference between the KKK and Al Qaeda seems to be the color of the hoods.

[Samaha]

"the vast majority of Muslims have stayed silent - pronouncing no fatwas or jihads against the fanatics who deliberately misinterpret of the Koran to further their own quest for power and control."

That's a false statement.

1. There are actually fatwas against violence targeting radicals from Muslim organizations.

2. There have been outright condemnations by Muslim organizations directly about the Fort Hood incident, without making any excuses for the individual - this reflects that these actions are not tolerated by the Muslim community.

How many people, like yourself would come out and say - "Many of us blamed this incident on Muslim silence on violence, but we were wrong" I doubt I would see a single acknowledgement to that, but Muslim organizations are giving you exactly the acknowledgements that you require.

Why is it that I don't see any blame of media for legitimizing fringe elements? Muslim organizations were being productive within their own communities by marginalizing these elements, but the negative media portrayals certainly haven't marginalized these elements!

I commend the Muslim organizations for their integrity. I think it is important for all of us to realize that each time a statement is made by Muslim organizations, unconditionally condeming an act without understanding the intent of the perpetrator, that Muslim organizations are contributing to the stereotyping of Muslims. These organizations are fighting extremism and perhaps to their own detriment within American society.

[SadButWiser]

Actually there are many Fatwas, but they are irrelevant. One needs no Fatwa to do or not to do. It is meaningless in such circumstances.

[Azam Nizamuddin - Huffpost Blogger]

Unfortunately, this is one of those canards that continues to misrepresent the facts and is incoherent with respect to a religion. Every significant Muslim institution throughout the world as well as very important religious organizations have not only condemned the attacks on 9/11 but also terrorism, as well as using violence against the innocent. For example the two largest Muslim organizations in the largest Muslim country, Indonesia, posted condemnations against the 9/11 attacks, but the American media never reported this. This is true for many, many such incidents and episodes. But no matter how much condemnation occurs, this false charge keeps cropping up.

The other problem with this fallacious argument is that you are seeking a practice and standard beyond normal religious communities. It is not normal for religious communities to condemn their faith or their practitioners every time one of its adherents commits a crime or engages in sinful behavior. Otherwise, we would need to have a hourly recording that apologizes for every conceivable incident that occures in the world. Can you imagine the Catholic church or the National Council of Churches apologizing for Christianity everytime a murder, rape, or assault is committed in the United States, where over 80% of the population has some form or Christian background. This is an irrational and preposterous standard. But this is exactly you are proposing for the Muslim world.

[langej]

Sorry. I DO believe that some Muslim organizations have condemned violence - and accept more have been reported in the British than in the American media.

But I have seen no fatwas or jihads declared against Al Qaeda as a group or the Taliban as a group. I am more than willing to be corrected, if anyone can list them for me.

[Arthur Hu]

Wow, I never realized 9/11 wasn't an act of Islamic terrorism either. All those guys quoting the Koran, that Awlaki guy calling it a war on Muslims, and blessing killing of soldiers "sent to kill Muslims" when the real problem is "right wing hooliganism", those are the people we should be profiling! Al Queda has no connection with Islam. Thanks for clearing that up for us. So it's a coincidence the 9/11 hijackers contacted Awlaki and went to the same mosque, and the guys that wanted to blow up Ontario after listening to Awlaki's sermons in the name of Islam had nothing to do with Islam. You really think if Hasan wasn't up to his eyeballs in Jihaist thinking, he would have shot everybody? Do you think Awlawki would have called Hasan a hero if it was a random shooting? This has al Queda written all over it, and you don't even think 9/11 qualifies as Islamic terrorism.

[Vxx]

The actual motivations are still murky and will be until trial.

But this man was being treated for depression­.... unanswered question: was he on anti-depressants? Side-effects include suicidal behavior and violent outbursts.
He was upset for many reasons --- many of which were legitimate complaints and was getting no redress. His crimes are indefensib­le... but the public needs to focus on what actually sparked them rather than going for the "no shades of grey" label-and-forget memes.

[JimRinX]

Good Point!
Want to learn more?
GoTo: www.cchr.org - which is the Citizens Committee on Human Rights; they've done a remarkable job of exposing the myths and falacies that have come to dominate the Psychiatric World - most notably by interviewing (former) PharmaCo Sales Personel, who quit over a matter of conscience!

[GardenerNorCal]

I am with you. How I had wished this man's name had been Smith, Jones, etc.. But it's an issue we are going to have to learn to live with. This country is based on the freedom of religion. We have to stop thinking of some religions as evil and others not. We have to consider that we may never know this man's motives or understand them. And we have to be objective enough to consider that his religion had nothing to do with the act he committed.

We do have to consider if as has been reported he had ask for a discharge, and performance evalutions had outlined some instability, why was he scheduled for deployment? It seems to me that could have created a volatile situation no matter what his religion was. You don't back a scared dog into a corner and not assume it's going to try and bite you. I am also puzzled in how he was allowed to purchase weapons and bring them onto the base if he had received evaluations that found him unstable.

[Vxx]

The US is deploying all sorts of people around the world they may should not be... because they are flat running out of people. They've sucked their National Guard dry (which is *supposed* to helping with matters within the borders like natural disaster relief - Katrina, eh?). They're deploying the same troops (often leaving families stranded) 3 and 4 times into war zones. There's no draft because that's "political suicide" but, hey, no problem, we'll just destroy the job market and bracket educational costs so that many of the poor and middle-class are forced to choose a military option.

The US is in an unsustainable mode and given the intransigence of the "big boys" it may utterly crash while they make sail for the Caymans or other ports after it collapses.

[Azam Nizamuddin - Huffpost Blogger]

Absolutely correct. Tthe problem is that any nut can purchase guns and go on a rampage today. In this case, this guy should never have been transfered to Fort Hood and allowed to purchase fire arms.