So, our Times geopolitical strategist and religious-political-economic philosopher is wringing his hands about the
It's become a stock line for both neocons and Christian Right zealots to complain any time that there's a terrorist act by Muslims that makes the news to complain that Muslims in general aren't speaking out enough against Muslim terrorism. There are other variants, e.g., Muslims should be speaking out more than anyone else against Muslim terrorists; American Muslims should be particular rabid in Patriotically Correct causes, etc.
Since the criteria for the complaint are about as vague as they could be, the critics can always complain that whatever Muslims do say against terrorism is never "enough".
The complaint is really a way of saying that all Muslims are to blame for terrorism by any Muslims. Mr. Suck-on-this provides a good example of this in his column.
Before getting into the quotes, I'll say something about the general concept. Germans have developed a conceptual framework for talking about the Second World War, the Holocaust and the experiences of East Germans that relies on the concept that there is no such thing as collective guilt, but there is collective responsibility. Other countries having gone through some particularly traumatic historical experiences - the Franco dictatorship in Spain, El Proceso in Argentina (military dictatorship 1976-82), the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile - assume some similar notion. That general idea has some very immediate relevance for recent traumatic political experiences in the United States. But that's not where I'm going in this post.
That concept of individual guilt/collective responsibility is more obvious to me in the context of nations, where there is some generally-understood notion of citizenship involved. It's not so clear to me in terms of religion.
When a Christian like Tim McVey of Oklahoma City bombing infamy commits a violent act of terrorism, even one motivated like McVey's was at least in significant part by his Christian Identity beliefs, you don't see Christians all over the world turning out to demand that he be excommunicated or to condemn his Christian heresy.
And when some Christian terrorist bombs an abortion clinic or assassinates an abortion provider, you also don't see hordes of Christians out on the streets demonstrating to declare that this is no way, no how consistent with the Christian religious perspective.
But if you substitute Christian for Muslim and America for Pakistan, isn't that exactly what Tom Friedman demands of Pakistanis?
But while the Pakistani government’s sober response is important, and the sincere expressions of outrage by individual Pakistanis are critical, I am still hoping for more. I am still hoping — just once — for that mass demonstration of “ordinary people” against the Mumbai bombers, not for my sake, not for India’s sake, but for Pakistan’s sake.Even more remarkable is this comment:
Why? Because it takes a village. The best defense against this kind of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers — and not amplify, ignore, glorify, justify or “explain” their activities.
Sure, better intelligence is important. And, yes, better SWAT teams are critical to defeating the perpetrators quickly before they can do much damage. But at the end of the day, terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say. That is why the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: “No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.”I'm surprised that he would publish a comment like the one bolded. Given the nonsense that he and other Big Pundits crank out on a steady basis, I shouldn't be, I suppose.
Why should Pakistanis do that? Because you can’t have a healthy society that tolerates in any way its own sons going into a modern city, anywhere, and just murdering everyone in sight — including some 40 other Muslims — in a suicide-murder operation, without even bothering to leave a note. Because the act was their note, and destroying just to destroy was their goal. If you do that with enemies abroad, you will do that with enemies at home and destroy your own society in the process. [my emphasis]
But if we take that sentence literally, it meant that in 1974-75 when Bill Ayers and his associates in the Weather Underground were blowing up bathrooms in public buildings, that meant that most likely a majority of Americans approved of it, because "terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say."
And that when the Rote Armee Faktion (RAF) in Germany in the 1970s were kidnapping and murdering political and business leaders, that a majority of Germans likely supported it, because "terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say."
We could run through the same thing with a huge number of example: Americans with Tim McVey and his Christian Identity associates, Argentinians with the Montenero guerrillas, Uruguayans with the Tupamaros, Spainiards with ETA. Because "terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say."
But in the cases I mentioned and in many others, it can be shown that the terrorist groups did not enjoy majority support or sympathy. And often part of the political strategy behind acts of terror is based on a recognition that the groups are not popular at the moment. The goal becomes using terrorism to expose the weaknesses and/or cruelty of the enemy government in the hope of drawing supporters to the cause. And sometimes the very practical motive of using kidnappings and robberies to raise funds.
There's a good reason why Christians all over the country in the US don't protest when there's a violent attack on an abortion clinic somewhere: it doesn't occur to most American Christians to blame it on the Christian religion in general.
Friedman makes a lame attempt to relate it to the concept of Catholics being concerned about the sex-abuse scandal. (Putting it in the mouth of an anonymous speaker, he calls it the "pedophile priest scandal", but the sex-abuse scandal was about more than pedophilia in the clinical sense of the term.) Aside from his careless characterization of the scandal, it seems pretty obvious that church-going Catholics had to be concerned about it because it affected the operations of their churches, the well-being of children in their churches, and the financial health of their churches. But pretty much everyone thought it was obvious that those abuses violated the principles of the Christian religion and were unacceptable conduct for Christian priests.
When a Catholic layperson commits an act of sex abuse, or an act of political violence, or some other crime of violence, you don't see masses of Catholics mobilizing to protest against those incidents, either. You do see local Catholic and other Christian churches getting involved in dealing with neighborhood safety issues. But not because they are trying to announce to the world that they are distancing themselves from criminals who are Christians. It doesn't occur to most Christians that there is any need to do such a thing.
I have a few Muslim friends and acquaintances. And I might ask them at times about something related to Islamist political activity in the news, or something about the Islamic faith. But I don't assume that they are supportive of some act of terror committed by a Muslim. In fact, I used to work very closely with a Pakistani Muslim from Lahore. I don't need to ask or wonder whether he approves of the terror attack in Mumbai, because I know damn well he doesn't. Nor do I see any reason why I or anyone else should expect him to be particularly outspoken in denouncing those acts.
Friedman's argument is obviously ridiculous. But it's not an argument from reason. It's an argument used as an excuse to blame Muslims in general, or at least Pakistani Muslims in general, for the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. And this is before we have any clear idea who actually mounted the attacks.
Another small irritation, small but notable occurring in the column of the man often considered to be the most influential American columnist. He writes, "At the same time, any reading of the Pakistani English-language press reveals Pakistani voices expressing real anguish and horror over this incident. Take for instance the Inter Press Service news agency article of Nov. 29 ..."
Inter Press Service (IPS) is a valuable resource for international news. And it's open to left-leaning and antiwar analyses from people like Jim Lobe, Bill Berkowitz and Gareth Porter. But it's not part of the "Pakistani English-language press". The IPS Contact Us page lists offices in New York, Rome, Berlin, Johannesburg and Montevideo. None in Pakistan.
Tags: terrorism, thomas friedman
No comments:
Post a Comment