|
Zonie63 -> RE: Racism and Islamophobia. (9/2/2014 8:31:54 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Here is the difference Lucy
While I and my fellows discuss the ideology, and keep turning the focus back onto that, you and your fellows have nothing other than to time and again try to turn the debate into a character assassination of whoever dares to criticize the ideology, or to otherwise try to derail the debate
Even with the post you falsely claim is an ad hominem on my part, I am redirecting the debate back onto Islam, despite your efforts to make the debate about me
I think part of the problem in this discussion is that there is no coherent definition of what this particular ideology is.
There's an old saying: Know your enemy. But in trying to determine who is the West's "enemy" here, all I hear is a bunch of vague double talk and circular reasoning. You also seem to be involved some creative wordsmithing in drawing distinctions between "Muslim" and "Islamic," but it still doesn't give us any clarity. That was the problem cited in the OP. After 9/11, that guy in Mesa was upset, as I was and many other Americans were, but he didn't have a clue as to who the "enemy" actually was. But he just had to go after somebody.
Earlier in this thread, you made a comparison to "Naziphobia," but at least Nazism was something that could be pinpointed, its leaders identified, along with key cities, bases, and industries located and reduced to rubble. But it wasn't really the word "Nazi" itself, it was the malignant nationalism it was based upon, combined with the technology, industry, and finance of a modern nation to make them into a formidable and grave threat.
Is it possible that you may be misidentifying the actual "threat" here? Is it really Islam which is the problem, or is it a form of Arab nationalism using religion as a mask? Either way, the threat seems to be religious tyranny and/or malignant nationalism, not necessarily "Islam," in and of itself.
If anything, "Islamophobia" might be more analogous to "Commie-phobia," which gripped our country with varying intensity during the Cold War.
Of course, the more relevant question is what do we actually do about any of this that's going on. Not just in the Middle East, but anywhere in the world where there is a malignant, tyrannical regime or faction which uses violence and terror to achieve their ends. Sure, there are indeed many threats we need to protect ourselves from, but I think we should also look at this from a rational geopolitical perspective and not delve into emotional melodrama about "evil."
That's part of the reason why some of the more reactionary foreign policies are discredited in many people's eyes. There's always some "boogieman" out there's who is "gonna get us if we don't watch out." This has been part and parcel of the hawkish interventionist perspective ever since the McCarthy era.
I don't know that I agree with the idea that "Islamophobia" would constitute racism. It's possible that one can be both a racist and an Islamophobe, but that wouldn't automatically make the two synonymous with each other.
Ultimately, I think that we're dealing with an idea, not an actual nation or national government. The best way to fight an idea is with another idea. But our political leaders have seemingly run out of ideas. Just like Hollywood producers, all anyone can think to do is come out with remakes.
At least in terms of opposing religious tyranny or malignant nationalistic idealism which has proven to be destructive and menacing in the past, I agree with you completely. I agree that it's in our interests to protect ourselves from that.
But whatever policy and direction we choose to take in protecting ourselves from whatever it is that threatens us, it doesn't do anyone any good if it's an unsuccessful and failed policy due to recklessness and myopic ignorance as to who the "enemy" truly is.
|
|
|
|
