But It Is Different With Islam? Introduction

There has always been an element of the American population that dislikes foreigners. Sometimes the "conflict" is about religion, sometimes ideology, and occasionally simple skin color or cultural differences. There were the know-nothings in the 1850s who railed about the Irish Catholics, then there was the Klan in the 1920s convinced that Italian Catholics were going to take over the country and make the Pope king of America. Xenophobia is such a basic vice, people want to be with others like themselves, and fear people who are different. Even if those differences are small, the "my tribe is superior" is an easy and lazy pattern of thinking to fall into. The United States, founded with the words "all men are created equal" somewhere in our baptismal documents, has always had this this conflict those who want to come here and those already here that do not want "them" here. Too many pronouns in that proposition I know, but this news cycle is going to be taken up with hypocrites defending freedom of speech while freaking out about the "other."

I lifted these images from another blog that goes into much greater detail because they fit into one of the two themes I want to concentrate on in my next few posts. There is a great synergy of dumb out there right now, fanatics of so many stripes displaying barbaric behavior. There are just a few definitions to deal with before diving into some analysis. Because there are some real misunderstandings about key concepts in the great public dialogue of current events.

I keep reading in comment sections about how "Islam is not a race" therefore Islamophobia is not racism. Congratulations, all of you little trolls out there got one right, sort of. Islam, like Christianity, is a universalizing religion. This means that Muslims actively seek to convert people to their religion, just as Christians do. You can be a Muslim no matter what color your skin is or where on the globe you call home, but most Muslims are not "white" so most of the attacks on Islam are also attacks on people that are non-white. The attacks are often made because the Islamophobe is white and claims to be superior, their intent being maliciously discriminatory and bigoted, means that yes it is still racism.

However, there are about a billion Muslims in the world so they are not exactly some tiny, oppressed minority. As much as that may offend the ultra politically correct crowd. And until the end of the First World War, much of the Middle East was ruled by the Ottoman Sultan, not European Imperialists. There are predatory authoritarians in the Muslim world who oppress their people, they happen to collaborate with predatory authoritarians in the West for profit sometimes but they do just fine on their own too. Toss in the fact that much of the world's oil supply is controlled by Muslim governments and you find that the Muslim world is far from powerless. Which is exactly why it plays so well into the "Clash of Civilizations" worldview.

There, have I sufficiently offended both extreme ends of the American political spectrum? Good, on to the next point: Freedom of Speech. This concept seems to be very misunderstood. What does the First Amendment state? "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech." So what Constitutional Freedom of Speech means is that the government will not restrain freedom of the people to criticize it, though there are exceptions. Just as xenophobia is part of human nature, a bad part for sure, so is the desire to control the expression of others. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once wrote that what is remarkable about our system is not that the government and people sometimes try to censor ideas or expression, that is basically the norm of human societies, but that we rather quickly snap back from those episodes and feel national remorse. That occurred after the Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams' administration and other wartime or crisis flare ups of censorship during the Civil War, WWI, the McCarthy period.

What Freedom of Speech does not mean is freedom from criticism. Yes, you are free to say really dumb and untrue things like Sarah Palin regularly does, but others are equally free to call you on your lies and stupidity. You are then free to respond, and vice versa ad infinitum until Godwin's Law is violated multiple times and every logical fallacy is perpetrated repeatedly. What you are not free to do is pick up a gun and use violence against someone whose speech offended you.

So what I would like to explore in the next few posts is whether or not Islam as an enemy to western authoritarians (conservatives) is in any way different than the previous enemy civilizations as they saw them. Some of these include in no particular order, communists, the Soviet Union or Russia, socialists, immigrants of Southern European stock, immigrants of other nationalities or religions. Is there any difference between Cold War rhetoric and that of the so-called "War on Terror?" What about different audiences, is there a difference between elite and popular Islamophobia? I am certainly not an expert on any of these questions but I would like to add what I can to the discussion. Every little bit can help to diffuse the anger and maybe head off the desired confrontations of both sides and their will to dominate.