Politics and the Other

Throughout the history of the modern nation state, politicians and agenda-driven media personalities, have maligned ethnic and religious minority communities.  In most cases, race has been the trigger used in marginalization.  During times of economic prosperity, calls to politically disenfranchise or define minorities as “unworthy” of equal protection under the law are reduced to a murmur and occasionally being in association with such views even become a political liability.  When an economic or political downturn begins to spiral, however, the murmurs hovering just below the surface gradually begin to fester and amass sympathetic listeners.  As the audience grows, the frequency of these messages begins to reverberate and zero in on those persons, who for some reason or other, are viewed outside acceptability.  Distrust can be aroused from something as minor as a foreign tongue.  Suspicions about what the other believes turn to fear, and fear to animosity; in its most insidious manifestation: hate.

The connection between the sudden widespread disdain and persecution of certain groups has most often occurred along economic fault lines.  If we examine the extreme case of European Jewry, following Germany’s defeat in WWI, the rising demagogues began taking aim at the Jewish population shortly after the punitive measures of the Versailles Treaty further reduced the country to a shell of its former glory.  Although obvious to the outside observer, the Jews were no more to blame than the Lutherans for the fate it suffered upon its defeat.  Auschwitz was not built overnight, however.  Slowly the menacing voices of accusation began to surface and infect the reasoning of the average German.  The purveyors of hate used their influence to attain the highest power in the land, sparing no one who dared protest or so we warned by the chilling reminder by Martin Niemöller, who wrote, “Then they came for me and… no one was left to speak up.”   

In the United States, various European groups experienced less than an open arms welcome upon arrival.  The Irish were essentially exported from their homeland as a cheaper means of ridding the British lords the expense associated with feeding them in the poorhouses following the mid-19^th century potato blight.  They, too, faced horrid conditions due to the difficulty imposed by prejudice.  Within a couple decades, they were asked to take up arms on behalf of the Union.  Although the Irish had faced their own version of Jim Crow, they feared an end to slavery would jeopardize their own economic standing.  Often they responded violently to calls to what many considered a war to end slavery.  In the end, however, the Irish retained their status above the even more abused ex-slaves.  After all, once the Irish lost their accent, they were easily able to blend in whereas the physical qualities of a people do not fade over time.

More recently, in fact, spanning into the present, persons of Mexican and South American ancestry have been the targets of social defamation.  During the Eisenhower administration, “Operation: Wetback” targeted anyone of Chicano and Latino decent, including American citizens, and deporting them south of the border for fitting the description of the other.  As of late, some states have implemented legislation requiring persons suspected of being in the country illegally based on a profile, specifically, belonging to a certain ethnic group, to carry documents with them, proving their legal status.  Along the boarder states, vigilante groups have risen to patrol the landscape in search of people they suspect of being undocumented.  Many of these groups have been tied to organized hate gangs with an agenda to rid the entire country of people outside of their xenophobic acceptance scale.

The most recent addition to the game of political football are Muslims Americans.  Since Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign circulated rumors that then Senator Barak Hussein Obama is a closet Muslim, the momentum to rail against Muslim Americans has steadily advanced to the forefront of electoral politics.  In many circles, it has become politically correct to associate Islam with all things sinister.  One listen to recent national campaign ads demonstrate that Muslims have become fair game.  Attempts to tie the Attorney General of New York, running for Governor, to a “terrorist sympathizing imam” proposing to build a “victory mosque” at Ground Zero and painting all Muslims with the brush, have become common place.  In the Ohio race for Treasurer, one candidate used images depicting a staff member of his opponent’s campaign standing in front of a mosque, and laced with negative messages.  Buses with Leaving Islam ads have appeared in major cities, funded by a right-wing conservative group with strong political ties.  These and other such efforts to defame millions of people in this country are despicable. 

Moreover, conservative talk radio has gone into overdrive cranking out anti-Muslim rhetoric.  Regarding the proposed Islamic Center in Manhattan, one such radio host stated on air, “If you do build a mosque, I hope somebody blows it up.”  Some have said point blank, “the US is at war with Islam.”  What is the faithful listener do think when he or she encounters a women in hijab?  Just this week, such a woman was spat on and cursed at while shopping at a North Carolina Walmart.  At this rate, it may only be a matter of time before a 21^st century version of Father Coughlin is spewing open hatred against the Muslims of this country over the radio waves.  One such personality has already encouraged his listeners to forcibly pull the veils off of Muslim women.  What’s next? Refusing to seat a man wearing a kufi at a lunch counter?  Are to expect “No Dogs, No Muslims” signs on storefronts?  Efforts in ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Tennessee to strip Islam of any constitutional protections recently were debated in court.  Thankfully, the judge ruled in favor of the Constitution and against religious bias.  The fact that this case was even allowed to be heard by the court, however, should signal a red flag.

The net result of all of this can be seen in the rise in hate-crimes directed against Muslims around the country.  In Spokane, a razor wire fence had to be erected around the perimeter of a newly built mosque to prevent vandalism.  According to one of its members, had the fence not been built, the mosque would have been stormed by an angry mob that gathered when it was announced that Barak Obama was elected the next President of the United States (apparently influenced by the erroneous reports of his being a Muslim).  Last spring, a man was caught on camera trying to set fire to a mosque in Jacksonville, Florida; the same mosque where a heckler barged in, shouting obscenities at worshippers the month before.  In a small, unmarked mosque in Seattle, the Imam says he is hesitant to advertise out of fear that someone might attempt something similar.  Just last month, two Muslim women verbally abused and threatened with vehicular assault by a woman at a Tukwila petrol station.

History has a habit of repeating itself.  The hate directed at Muslims bares the same hallmark of ignorance as in the past.  In times of economic disparity, scapegoats are created to lift the burden of introspection off those who actually share in its responsibility and place it on the shoulders of the other.  The other in this case happens to be Muslims.  Unlike previous citizens who have been publically maligned, Muslims cannot be singled out for sharing a particular ethnicity or language.  One visit to a central mosque will demonstrate the array of diversity that exists within the Muslim American Diaspora.  At  the Idriss Mosque in Seattle’s Northgate neighborhood, for example, worshippers from Japan, across the Indian Subcontinent, the Middle East,  Africa, and Europe, as well as local natives, gather on any given Friday to pray in congregation.  Perhaps it is this diversity, and less defined target that bigots find most frustrating.  At the end of the day, however, an assault against a single member of the community threatens all who are a part of it.  Tolerating hatred and abuse against one group eventually leads to similar treatment against others.  Those who deny that this is a problem are many times perpetuating it.  Case in point: conservative media often decries the legitimacy of reports indicating increased hate crimes against Muslims, yet they are the same source that continuously airs anti-Muslim rhetoric. 

If Americans continue to be blinded by Islamophobic messages in the media and by those serving in Public office, we could well be on our way backwards to an era resembling Jim Crow, where children in hijab are barred from attending public schools and places of worship are bombed.  The campaign of fear leeching into the American psyche, if allowed to spread, could result in waves of anti-Muslim attacks, especially if dismissed by public officials who were swept into office on a wave of bigotry.  As a people who pride ourselves on tolerance, we must not repeat the kind of venomous scorn for members of our society to yet again stain the pages of our nation’s history.  We have seen public officials openly use hate speech in the past and we are seeing it reemerge today.  It was unacceptable when directed against African Americans, Asian Americans and Catholics in the past and it is equally detestable today.  Slogans that politicize and sanction bigotry must not be used prop up elected officials rather, remarks that defame law abiding citizens should sink any chance of victory at the poles, irrespective of frustrations brought about by a failing economy that affects each and every one of us.  Crying foul at the growing number of mosques being constructed or women who choose to hide their beauty beneath a hijab will not solve the deficit, reduce crime, or end the war in Afghanistan.  Encouraging all members of society to actively participate to solve our country’s woes just might.