From times immemorial, aristocrats in a society have distanced themselves from "others." However, with the complexities of modern society, a simple us-versus-them is not enough -- we now have a hierarchy of otherness. In today's society, however individualistic it may be, self-worth is still measured by presumed proximity to the top and contempt for the bottom. These hierarchies are readily enforced with high-intensity media, replete with experts and commentators who are relentless in helping us rearrange our prejudices. Traveling through Europe as a non-Muslim Indian, secular really, I find myself caught up curiously in this vortex of pre-assigned hierarchy.
Allow me to elucidate using this non-secular experience with some history. Following the end of World War II, fueled by technological progress and a need to rebuild, Europe experienced a period of unprecedented economic growth that led to labor shortage. To fill this hole in low-paying industrial and manual labor sectors, the former colonialists of Europe turned to their previous colonies for cheap laborers. During this time, many Indians, bereft of opportunities at home, turned to the U.K., hoping for a good life for themselves and better lives for their children. However, when they arrived, immigrant Indians faced harsh discrimination, violence and fire bombs. Immigrant Indians became the instant bottom among "others." Regardless of their origin, Indians were called "Pakis" -- a lowly status reserved for the worst. However, during my recent travels to the U.K., my experience was quite different. Indians have managed to elevate themselves above Pakis, who are now a distinct group by themselves and also apart from the Bangladeshis, to the point that even Indian immigrants in the U.K. are now referring to the immigrants of Pakistani origin as Pakis. This made me wonder, what had changed?
You do not have to look very far for the answer. Turn to newspapers, and there is constant talk of homegrown terrorism, pictures of women in abaya as symbols of oppression and constant coaching by both mainstream media and tabloids on how to perceive Muslims -- experts warning about disenfranchised Paki youths and tabloids celebrating Muslim women who have "broken free." This commentary did not agree with my observations. I found Muslim men and women to be family-bound. I also did not find any Muslims among out of control, disenfranchised British youth high on drugs and alcohol who are too ready and willing to engage in violence. While boarding a train at the Manchester train station, one of them even tried to pull me out of the train while uttering expletives -- one of the scariest experiences of my life.
The victimization of Muslims in Europe is all too real. During the Bosnian Genocide and Kosovo War in the 1990s, over 200,000 Muslims were massacred, 50,000 Muslim women were raped and 2.2 million Muslims were forced to flee their homes, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. These brutal actions were taken in part of an "ethnic cleansing campaign." In a 2009 referendum, Swiss voters approved a ban on new minarets on Muslim mosques. Minarets neither pose a threat to the national security of Switzerland nor disrupt the pristine beauty of the Swiss Alps. The ban is narrowly targeted towards Muslim places of worship. The tower-like shikara of Hindu temples or the dome of the Sikh Gurudwaras are exempted from this ban. As a person of Hindu heritage, I do not find any solace in this exemption. This past April, France implemented their ban on the niqab, a full face-covering veil. In a study titled, "Are French Muslims Discriminated Against in Their Own Country?", it was found that in the work force, Muslims have only a 2.5 percent chance of receiving a job interview compared to others.
These prejudices are also harbored by minorities. In a private conversation, an Indian restaurant owner in Southern France related, "In India, like in France, most of the problems are because of these Muslims." This led me to wonder, that what if the majority of the immigrants in Southern France or elsewhere in Europe were Hindu Indians instead of Muslims? Will I receive the same accord? Do Europeans resent Muslims because of their practices or their numbers? The experience of early Indian immigrants clearly shows that British did not have any love for Hindu immigrants; it is just that disdain of Muslims now is greater. Is this rearrangement of prejudices governed solely by the numbers or judged by actions such as terrorist attacks?
As journalist Fareed Zakaria recently noted in CNN, "Of the 294 terror attacks committed in Europe in 2009, only one was conducted by Islamists. That's a third of one percent. There were 249 terror attacks in Europe in 2010. Only three of those attacks were carried out by Islamist terrorists. Again, that's about one percent. Most of the attacks were carried out by the separatist groups or anarchists." Statistics have made it clear that the laws targeting Muslims in Europe are not based on terrorism. What then, other than the liturgical unison of the media, can explain the cabalism that generates the hierarchy of otherness?
However, in the history of immigration, there are remarkable parallels with North America. In the late 19th century, when the Italian immigrants arrived on the shores of America, the previous hostility to the Irish shifted to the new immigrants Are we witnessing the same? Have the Indians moved up a notch in the hierarchy of otherness in the European milieu?
Sonny Singh: We Are All Muslims: A Sikh Response to Islamophobia in the NYPD and Beyond
Wilfredo Amr Ruiz: Muslim-American Terrorism: Instilling Fear for the Sake of a Budget
Anju Bhargava: Transforming Communities: Siva Principle of Change in Action
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Greetings Chris, Austria
History is the way to know what people mean. Anecdotes are not a good method to come to truth unless it is a dramatic example. Hatred, is always wrong, and the Gita explains how the human ego works on desire to form hatred. This is a universal problem. We understand that there are good people and bad people in all groups.
But look to a solid study of history. In every century since christianity formed and likewise since mohamed and likewise since the communist revolutions: humans have been sacrificed to a god that is in their scripture as hateful. History demonstrates the ideology of hatred. Whether we find good nazis amongst the bad is not the issue, we must look deeper.
A rigorous look at the evidence will support your understanding of the why and how. It is not black and white but a spectrum from inclusive systems as Buddhism and the Hopi, to the rigid us v them of the christo-islamists. The source of terrorism is hatred, the source of hatred is ego, the support of ego based hatred is the belief that your god justifies your hate.
hariaum
With western democracies item No. 2 in your post does not apply in real world, specially, once you step over the national borders. Why? Because "national interest" takes priority over humanity and/or terrorism.
"The threat of attacks by Islamist terrorists in the
EU remains high and diverse.
In the past year, several EU Member States have
successfully prevented attacks by Islamist terrorist
groups, which aimed to cause mass casualties. During
2010, 179 individuals were arrested for offences
linked to Islamist terrorism, representing a 50% increase
compared with 2009. Furthermore a higher
proportion of those arrests related to the preparation
of attacks in the EU (47% compared with 10%
in 2009).
Additionally, the high number of threat statements
to the EU (46) posted by Islamist terrorist organisations
or their media fronts indicates terrorist groups’
clear intent to target the European Union."
It sure seems to me like the EU citizens are the ones being victimized here. Llt us never forget that planning to kill even one person, let alone large numbers of people far outshadows any percieved slights. Once again we have a denial and refusal to confront difficult issues regarding Islam, that only helps to perpetuate the problem of terrorism.
This is called the silver rule - you do unto others what they do unto you.
In Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, which are Muslim countries, it is forbidden for non-Muslims to even have private religious gatherings - forget about building temples or holding public religious gatherings. Why is this OK?
In Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, it is prohibited for non-Muslims to hold the posts of President or Prime Minister because sharia law prohibits non-Muslims from ruling over Muslims in a "Muslim" country. Is this not discrimination against the religious minorities in these countries? Why is this OK?
Even in moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia, it is forbidden for Muslims to convert to another religion, and it is illegal to proselytize Muslims. Non-Muslims on the other hand are encouraged to convert. Why is this blatant discrimination in "moderate" Muslim countries OK?
People in the West have been brainwashed by leftwing multi-cultis to a point where everyone feels free to condemn every action by white people and Christians, while overlooking or making excuses for the most horrific actions by other races and religions - that is the only "otherness" that I see in the West, having worked and traveled all over the West off and on for many years now.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=78099&Cat=4
"No official figures on forced conversions are available but the HRCP believes that the numbers are high. In most cases, young Hindu girls are abducted, converted, and forced to marry Muslim men. In some cases, they have also been forced into prostitution."
Our own people are being killed, kidnapped, forcibly converted and raped next door in Pakistan.
Yet this does not bother Hindus in India or elsewhere - they would rather pontificate about the "otherness" of Pakistani immigrants to Europe (who have nobody but themselves to blame for being disliked by everyone) or the socio-economic causes of Somali piracy in the Indian Ocean.
I don't know any other religious group that has this pathological detachment from reality - attack Muslims somewhere and their co-religionists come swarming out of mosques to take revenge, attack Hindus and their co-religionists come swarming out of their offices to declare that Islamophobia is a huge problem.
I would like to hear from you why are you using a word "massacred Muslims" for a total number of killed? Where did you get your information about how many Bosnian Muslims are massacred, and, is there any info about how many Bosnian Christians were massacred?
This creates a great cultural gulf between them and all other Westerners and most other immigrants.
Well sure, it is pretty bad. But look at the numbers more closely. When the vote on minarets took place, a majority of the Swiss population did NOT go vote because they thought the object of the vote was too stupid for words and all the polls said the ban would not pass by a large majority (so why bother voting).
On the other hand, the people that were very motivated by the ban were the ones that went to vote. So if you really look at the numbers, it is more like 27% of the people that voted for a ban on minarets while the rest were apathetic or voted against it.
If there was a new vote, moderate people would this time overturn it.
me-ness
you-ness
we-ness
I-ness
Ilness.
Who else remembers that Martin Mulhner movie about hot tubs and Marin County, CA. That scene where the people make thier own wedding vows about "otherness.'
Like the word "milieu" but use the word "alienation" for "otherness."
A lot of anger toward Muslims in Britain is due to the radicals who spit and hurl
insults at our troops when they come home and their intolerance and bigotry on Armistice Day
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8126357/Muslims-clash-with-police-after-burning-poppy-in-anti-Armistice-Day-protest.html
You will find related articles there also.
Some radical Imams and their supporters preaching hatred and death to non believers and recruiting and grooming vulnerable young men for Al Qaeda and sending them to training camps in Pakistan.
These are not isolated incidents and what the police call "home grown terrorists" seem to be proliferating.
When the average British person see's Armistice Day in particular defiled they get angry as most
of them have lost a loved one in wars from WW1 to the present day. Unfortunately, moderate Muslims also get the backlash just by being Muslim.
There are bigots and religious zealots in every race and creed that we have to battle to retain our humanity but it seems at the moment we are losing the war.
Peace and love to us all and may your God and mine walk with us.
As for you uncertainty about the plight of Muslims in the future, I agree that the discrimination against Muslims will soon be like that of former immigrant groups. There always has to be an "other," and right now Muslims are the "other." It's unfair and unfounded, but as a Muslim, I'd rather bear it myself (and receive my blessings from God later on), then see it unjustly placed on yet another population.
They will remain the "other until they integrate into European mainstream and stop perpetrating FGM, child marriages, honor crimes, antisemitism and other forms of intolerance towards those with alternative opinion ( see Danish cartoon riots, 7/7, Theo Van Gogh, Euro-Jihadist villages in Pakistan etc.).