What a mess. NPR chief Vivian Schiller has now apologized for the way she fired Juan Williams -- but not for the act itself. She says that it wasn't his comments about getting nervous over Muslim airline passengers that got him fired -- at least not those comments alone. She apologizes for having either not done it earlier or later, and for the abrupt plug-pulling the she performed after Williams made his remarks on Fox.
Okay, that really clears things up. No doubt Palin and Huckabee will now withdraw their calls for the defunding of NPR.
Sigh... Among the many lessons to be drawn from NPR's dismissal of Juan Williams are these: Schiller is human, Williams is human, we are human, and most importantly, there is no bottom to the barrel of right-wing slime. Propagandists on the right just keep scraping deeper and deeper for the muck that passes for meaning.
Never mind the sheer hypocrisy of their sudden outrage on behalf of Williams compared with their jeers for Helen Thomas. She made the mistake of directing her intemperate and offensive remarks at Jews rather than Muslims. (Even as the Williams melodrama unfolded, the Weekly Standard went out of its way to smear her just last week with a "story" about how an al-Qaeda publication complains of Thomas's firing and supports terrorist attacks. In the same issue! Complete the syllogism yourself.)
Leave aside the inapt comparison of Juan's confession of fear of airplane passengers in Muslim garb and Rev. Jesse Jackson's remark about fearing robbery until he saw that his follower was white.
I'll come back to the psychology underlying these admissions. For the moment, suffice it to note that Schiller is a professional CEO who should know when and how to dismiss an employee. Williams is a professional journalist who should know he crossed a line. However loose the job description of a "news analyst" professional journalists do not broadcast personal fears or resentments of whole classes of people. But feelings get in the way. We're human.
What is inhuman in all of this is not the actions of the principals, but the reaction of the propagandists. There is a gross amorality in the Right's misappropriation language to describe a spat between two high-paid media heavyweights. Try this bit from Andrew Breitbart's "Big Journalism" site for tasteless rhetoric:
What NPR did in terminating Juan Williams was a high profile act of journalistic terrorism. It was a professional beheading with the goal of instilling fear so that other lesser reporters and journalists who might dare associate on Fox News will now think twice. ...NPR's taking offense at Williams's Muslim comment is nothing other than a veil, a burqa, if you will, to cover the real reason underneath his termination. So who's really behind the ... Sharia stoning of Juan Williams?
Only someone with no sympathy at all for the actual victims of beheading could blithely hijack terms for genuine atrocities and apply them to something as comparatively trivial as this. How would Daniel Pearl's children feel reading such heartless lines?
Of course, the underlying issues are not trivial at all -- Williams, who is not after all a bigot, blundered into the right's propaganda campaign to scare America into a blind fear of Islam. This is where human nature comes into focus.
We are born with emotions that evolved over millions of years to help us make snap judgments when survival is at stake. If a snake comes slithering into your house, you do not perform a careful analysis to determine how much of a threat it represents, whether, on balance, its survival as a rat-catcher may be a benefit to you, and so on -- you either flee or grab an ax and start swinging. Such visceral reactions don't make for sound judgments in a complex society, however.
Propagandists work hard to trigger the same kind of reactions in us toward "the enemy." Evidently, it is working so well that even a seasoned journalist like Williams, who made his bones writing about the civil rights movement, can say something like this: "When I get on a plane ... if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous."
This is an understandable yet deeply irrational reaction. It would make about as much sense for me to say that when I see a Christian with a big cross around his neck I get nervous. After all, wasn't George Tiller's murderer a Christian?
But Juan Williams is not alone. We all harbor xenophobic instincts. We're human.
It's not the feelings that makes a bigot. It's how we think about and act upon -- or against -- those feelings that counts. As he made his apparently impromptu remarks, some part of Juan's brain must have sounded a warning. That rational part struggled with the emotions, but could only manage to get out a feeble warning. He repeated it in a written defense of his actions: "This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims."
Statements aren't bigoted. People are ... or are not. Bigotry is instinctive. Evolution screams, when in doubt, overgeneralize. It's true that Islam has shown a capacity for turning out suicidal killers and appalling atrocities. But it's not true that this is the aim of Islam itself or the aspiration of most Muslims. You can argue about whether the totalistic ideology of Islam renders it capable of adaptation to modern Western values. To me, it's plain that individual Muslims can, and that's what counts.
But here's a larger truth. If even normally thoughtful, humane people like Juan Williams start letting their emotions break down the distinction between the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are peace-loving, decent people and the 0.1 percent of Muslims who are merciless killers, we are in for apocalypse now. And who would be for that? You'd be surprised.
It is strange and nearly incomprehensible, but the propagandists of the right seem to want the same thing that al-Qaeda wants: a global war between the Judeo-Christian West and the Muslim Rest. Perhaps they think God is on their side. Al-Qaeda certainly does. History suggests they are both wrong.
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
Kari Ansari: Muslim and American: Staying True to Faith and Country
It is already happening. Read this:
"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program. — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi
He is a highly respcted Islamic scholar in South Asia.
Radical Islam is a fascistic political ideology based upon the notion of "Islam" as a CULTURAL identification.
Take the sort of radical Islamic rhetoric you quoted and trade "National Socialism" for (radical/fundamentalist)"Islam" and "Aryan" for "Muslim"....and you wind up with speeches and attitudes that would have been perfectly at home in the Third Reich.
But in WWII we were fighting a NATION that was taken over by a really bad idea. Today, we are doing battle with that really bad idea, directly. If we try to shoot our way out of this problem...and only shoot our way out of it....all we will do is play right into the "Us v. Them", "Clash of civilizations" meme that these people are trying to use to rally other Muslims to their side.
In short, we start doing their work for them...and start showing that everything they are saying about us (in terms of being enemies of Islam) are true.
Also some people get scared or apprehensive when driving past small country towns especially in the old south when they need to stop for gas or whatever.
Alot of fears --- if we want to be honest.
Now if a guy is African American with a little bit of the ebony culture still in his voice and attitude and a Muslim who dresses in traditional Muslim garb at the same time... he might get a little prejudice from both angles, and God knows best.
Context, assimilation.
Had the south assimilated to the idea of freedom for all, before and after the civil war, the continuing abuses against the minorities, and majority who defended them, would not have occurred. Unfortunately that assimilation did not initially occur.
It was the South’s refusal to assimilate that caused, not just abuse of others, but "generated prejudice towards themselves". Assimilation and accommodation go hand in hand. It is not a one way street.
When the inhospitable south felt the sting of rebuff, before and after the Civil War they had no choice; assimilate. There are those who will challenge the status quo, and divide the country. There are those who demand what they are not willing to give. There are those who will not care one whit for others safety. Rebuff them.
Kellygreen's argument is holding Williams responsible for Kellygreen's feeling and not Kellygreen responsible, but all the while accusing Williams of doing what Kellygreen is doing; setting up the paradox of circular logic and potential failure. The failure is not by those who wish to accommodate, but by those who refuse to assimilate unless those who are accommodating, accommodate too much.
As moderate Muslims have come to understand, this is a problem within the Muslim community that must resolve. They cannot be allowed to hold the host hostage.
What is your definition of assimilation? Do they have to become Neo-Con zionists in your mind in order to assimilate?
What is all this talk about the South --- that is an insane comparison.
Your understanding of the relationships among individual rights, interpersonal boundaries, and personal responsibility is stuck at an adolescent level. Which I can only hope is, in fact, age-appropriate for you...and therefore you will most likely grow out of it in time.
First off...go review your American history..and get your facts straight.
Secondly, I'm not holding Mr. Williams responsible for anything but his own actions. What he said stripped a whole group of people (Muslims) of their individuality. In essence he gave voice to a religious/ethnic STEREOTYPE. Which is considered a form of verbal ABUSE in polite company.
Now, Mr. Williams---being a citizen in a free society---has the right to say whatever he likes. Even if that means stereotyping other people, and then trying to weasel out of acknoweldging that this is what he is, in fact, doing.
I, OTOH, being a citizen in that SAME free society---have the same right to hold him accountible for that action...and object to how he has chosen to exercise his individual right to speak his mind.
Which means he is only free to speak his mind---to other citizens---to the extent to which he is willing to LIVE with the consequences of doing so IRRESPONSIBLY. So when he said something that his employer considered to do irrepairable damage to his professional credibility as a journalist....
...he got fired.
I only hope speakign his mind was worth the price.
Oh....I'm sorry - NPR is a leftist mouthpiece......
Now that Juan Williams no longer works at NPR, how many African-Americans do they have on their payrolls that are on-air talking heads???
How come NPR does not "look like America??"
. . . because it's radio?
Do you have any evidence of that or this just one of your ex-recto pronouncements? I suspect that Michelle Norris would disagree with your claim that she is white. She doesn't sound black enough to you?
BTW - It's a shame that you are unable to behave like a civilized human being so that they will publish your illiterate comments.
How do we know that Williams is not a bigot? I don't know who he is. I do know that he's a regular on the right's propaganda channel. That’s something he gets paid for, not something he blundered into.
"Radical speakers must be allowed to address students on campus in the interests of free speech, says the head of the college attended by the alleged 1. Detroit jet bomber."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23798970-university-head-colleges-must-let-extremists-speak.do
“Each one of us is their target and we must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel -- if possible by peaceful means,” he added.” - (Kaukab Siddique, associate professor of English and journalism at Lincoln University of Pennsylvania
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/26/siddique
Firing him WAS punishement. It has an effect of "purging the dissenters" which is pretty darn scary. I want to see freedom of ALL thought in the media. If it offends...deal with it. I do all the time but I turn the channel and just don't allow it to bother me. We grow up, it's part of being free.
Sadly, NPR is a force for non freedom, non self expression, and of censorship. For this reason I do not respect them anymore.
Your hearts are in the right place, but you're getting swept up in the propagandists' bamboozle over freedom of speech. It is a precious right, but it does not apply to employment. In fact, the same First Amendment right that guarantees our freedom of speech also guarantees the freedom to disassociate from someone whose speech is incompatible with your values. Censorship is when the government uses its power to suppress expression.
Consider these examples. If a Wal-Mart greeter took to calling customers offensive names, ("Hey, Fatso, welcome to Wal-Mart!"), would the company be compelled to keep that person on free-speech grounds? That would be an insane extension of civil rights. For professionals, the need to maintain detachment and credibility is fundamental. A male gynecologist may think his unclad patient is gorgeous, but he is constrained by his profession from expressing those feelings. And a professional journalist (which I have been) is constrained from declaring his or her feelings about a wide range of people and issues -- except perhaps on Fox. Which is exactly where Juan Williams now resides. His free speech rights remain untouched.
I beg you, think about it and avoid this sand trap.
Clay
Do they have the right to publicly embarrass? While his free speech rights will remain untouched, will the exec's at NPR's?
Freedom is not just the right to do what one wishes..and expecting the rest of the world to simply have to put up with it..and ignore the effect that it has upon them. That is, imo, NOT a mature understanding of what genuine Liberty is.
Liberty is the freedom to do what one's conscience demands...but also the willingness to live with the consequences (good, bad or indifferent) of having done so. With serenity. Like those who engage in true civil disobedience. They ignore the laws that they find immoral...but then calmly accept the punishment for having done so.
Tolerance of intolerance is not maturity. It is moral laziness. Nor is the rationalization of verbally anti-social behavior "maturity". Unless it is coming from someone who literally is not capable of any other kind of behavior. Usually because of extreme youth, or some form of mental handicap.
Mr. Williams indulged in an ethnic stereotype in a professional environment where (outside of the right-wing media) it is no longer tolerated. No one said that he is not free to say what he wishes. He simply cannot do it and remained an employee of NPR...and most other places.
Fox, OTOH, has made it clear for quite some time now, that it has no problems with such behavior.
This sort of thing invariably makes me cringe, however; as a liberal, my support of free speech is unconditional; short of shouting fire in a crowded theaters, it comes down to defending that right not JUST when it is patently offensive, but ESPECIALLY when it is.
On one side, you have people who would have no problem defending NPR if they had intended his firing as outright censorship for it's own sake and on the other, the people calling for NPR to be defunded because, well? It's too liberal for them.
It should be of much greater concern that our fundamental liberties as Americans have become fair game for partisan politics.
Worse, there simply isn't any way to "force" someone to have a change of heart. The article made me think about Ann Coulter prattling on about invading people's countries and forcing them to convert to Christianity. Certainly one might force them to call themselves Christians, but would that actually make them Christians? Could Ann Coulter be forced to convert to Islam? I have to imagine there probably isn't a circumstance where she'd find that conceivable, but of course that really wasn't the point she was making at the time.
No media outlet should be allowed to promote covert tyranny onto the public at large, on the public dole.
The suppression of Mr. Williams honesty and willingness to talk about his fears serves what purpose? When people are not allowed to discuss their fears, in a rational manner, such as Mr. Williams attempted, so that open exchange might be communicated and fears resolved, or understood, they are effectively being forced to live with them. That in itself is tyranny, terrorism.
When nothing in the community at large changes, the status quo remains. Forcing people to live in fear serves those who need or desire the community to live in fear.
This has been forced onto the LGBT community, and women and children for thousands of years. It has caused untold damage. Shame on the right, and the left for it's failure to act.
It is the left who raised this issue to the level that it has taken, and the NPR specifically, for political purposes and vendetta's, and is jeopardizing the peace and well being of this country.
Hopefully, a civil suit will be brought against them and the truth will be brought forth.
Free speech does not allow for screaming fire in a theater, and yet it is allowed here in the USA, and Europe daily by extremists. There should be little wonder how it is that our countries safety, and the safety of Western Europe, has become entangled in radical extremism when it is being fostered in our midst without protest, or the silencing of protest.
Speak for yourself.
And Juan does infact support largescale violence towards various muslim nations
And his normal job is defending Fox news host's bigoted statements and provide the station as a whole with cover from charges of racism.. It was his part time job but now he's signed on to do it full time.
Best regards,
Clay
Some people just grow to the point where they are no longer ruled by their instincts....and stop making excuses for them when they seek to cause behavior that does harm to other people.
As a human being, I have an evolutionary "instinct" to beat someone unconscious whenever I get mad at them. The fact that I'm not currently in PRISON, is proof positive that I am not ruled by that instinctive response.
Thoughts and feelings have no moral impact.
What we do in response to those thoughts and feelings are where we practice morality and ethics. Where we demonstrate our regards for the rights...and fundamental humanity...of other people.
1. Anyone who reads my books knows I am not a bigot.
2. But I do sometimes get nervous around Muslims.
3. But I know that all Muslims are not a threat.
4. The real problem is extremists and nuts.
Go read the actual quotes. Indeed, if Juan committed one sin it was his honesty. As Welch points out, NPR itself demonstrates far more broad brush Islamophobia than he does, by refusing to run innocuous political cartoons because of what they fear would happen, for example. But they don't TALK about that fear. That was Juan's mistake, actually saying what he really felt. (Well, that and being on Fox News, of course. I'm suspect that was his biggest sin in the eyes of NPR.)
--
This is a side point, but I also question the author's 99.9% peaceloving, 0.1% killers distinction. If I recall, a poll after 9/11 showed that 93% of Muslims condemned the attacks. That's great, but 93% is not 99.9%.
God forbid, eh?
Williams committed no sin, the sin was committed against Juan and the millions and millions of Americans, and Muslim Americans who would like to discuss this issue, sanely. But therein lies the achilles heel; and watch the snakes rise up to bite it. God forbid we should all discuss the difference between good and evil.
Bigotry is not in and of itself evil, nor wrong. Bigotry is intolerance, nothing more nor less. Most people are intolerant of violence, some people appear immune to it, even proliferate it. While Americans, for the most part, agree that racism and discrimination against Islam is wrong, and agree that singling out Islam as violent, and stand for the discussion of this subject, there are those who do not allow an equal airing of grievances. There are those in the Mulsim community who group, not just Christians together in one lump, but all Americans together as Christians.
It was the "Christians bombed Japan", and Dresden", not the American military in responce to a horrific attack against the nation of America. Dare to question those assumptions on this site, with quotes, and watch the outright denials, and the stone wall of silence rise.
It is acceptable to post egregious rantings about Israel on this site, but don't dare defend their right to exist, and sadly exist anywhere.
It is acceptable to crucify Juan Williams; why am I not surprised.
What constitutes bigotry is not the recognition of difference. It is the DECISION that you can tell all you need to know about what someone is like on the INSIDE, by what you can see on the OUTSIDE. Which is why Mr. Williams (despite his denials) is a bigot, and his statement profoundly ignorant.
As for the similarities between Right-wing fear-mongers and Al-Qaeda...it is not a coincidence. You are dealing with the same basic personality types in both cases. They kleave (superficially) to different cultural value system...but relate to those values (and others in the same way):
1. They believe that they (alone) have a monopoly on what is Truth and what is Right.
2. They believe anyone who disagrees with them is (by definition) a Bad Person.
3. They believe (because they have a monopoly on Absolute Truth) that anything they do to "advance" their version of the Truth....and to hamstring any other version of it...is morally justifiable. Because they only understand a "dominate-or-be dominated" view of the world.
IOW. The Ends Justify the Means. Which is how all Evil ultimately justifies itself. Whether the "end" is simply personal gratification...or the boundaryless pursuit of some "higher good."
Hijacking? Where is there any mention of beheading in the quote? I could find none. I will grant the article that Sharia stoning was hijacked to describe what happened to Williams, and yes, inflammatory, intentionally, and wrongfully so; however, the truth is that they should have used the term of execution most cherished in western nations and especially by the press; crucified.
It appears to me that Muslim Americans have been hijacked by both parties, to one degree or another to promote their parties potential to win seats in the upcoming elections. I am not convinenced that either party gives two ****'s about the rest of us.
As to Helen Thomas and Juan Williams; there is no comparison, none. To even attempt to link them is journalistic dishonesty, and just another crucifixion of Juan Williams.
Juan Williams was being human when he admitted fear, he was being an honest human at that. We should not fear to discuss these things for fear of offending others, unless it is our intent to offend. There was no such intention. There was neither the intent toward malice, nor slander by Williams Comparing his example of humanity to Vivian Shiller’s is another crucifixion of Juan Williams.
I am hoping that NRP loses it’s funding. As a taxpayer, I find it corrupt that my tax dollars are paying for a radio broadcasting that does not equally represent all Americans to the best of their ability.
Part of being a responsible, emotionally mature adult, is not doing unnecessary harm to others.
What made what Mr. Williams did so reprehensible was NOT the fact that he felt fear. Fear is often irrational...it is part of our human nature. The feeling it self has no moral implications.
What DOES have moral implications is what you DO with that fear. Does being afraid give Mr. Williams the right to go out and physically assualt anyone who makes him anxious?
Because you are arguing that it DOES give him the right to VERBALLY assualt those who do. Because that is what you are doing whenever you strip someone of their individuality...and reduce them to a stereotype. (In this case, "Muslim=Terrorist"). ...and YES, there was intent.
Because Mr. Williams made the DECISION that his NEED to vent his irrational fears, and INDULGE his prejudices was more important the impact it would have on the people they were directed at. That he had the right to say whatever he felt he needed...and that the rest of the world should have to just put up with it, without complaint.
Sorry...but the world doesnt' work that way.
You have a right to say what you want. But only if you are willing to live with the consequences of doing it....and as Mr. Williams found out...those consequences sometimes are quite painful.
My discussion would be that what Mr. Williams said is felt by many Americans, Muslims included, as I have heard them testify, and it is a necessary discussion in order to clear the air of any irrational fears that any one of us might have. Such discussion can foster kinship and well being. Forcing people to stuff their feelings in the closest is akin itself to abuse. I suspect that it is this potential kinship, fellow human being bonding, human understanding and integrity that others wish to prevent. It separates and divides which purpose is to conquer.
There is no means of rational discussion with a irrational premise. I will end my post by reminding you that it is broadly known to be "caps" are screaming; in case you didn't know, and for future reference.
"Fear is often irrational...it is part of our human nature. The feeling it self has no moral implications"
A course in anatomy, physiology, and psychology would help you broaden your understanding.
If I were a Christian I would find it demeaning and offensive to compare the nailing of Jesus Christ to a cross with the dismissal of a news analyst from his post -- especially when he immediately got a whopping raise at his other job. But hey, it's a free country. Call it what you like.
Clay
As to Juan's raise; justice is sweet, eh? Professional jealousy? It's a free country, have at it.
However, as the latest polls show the Latino's are on to them. Where is the promise of immigration reform that they were promised? The Latinos are even running adds telling their people to stay home. Poof! Gone. Ater two years, the democrat are now promising to do something; we've heard that before; "yes we can-oops! Where is the LGBT reforms promised? Poof! Gone.
This is just fodder for the left to garner votes; but after the election; Poof! Gone.
I believe that they have even been dragging in correspondents who are reporting on other things to "weigh in" (as they like to say) on the "issue", becuase, of course, impromptu comments of paid FOX/GOP propaganda presenters is what passes for news on that channel.