Here's a curiosity. When Republican politicians end a major speech, they say, "God bless America." The Democratic form is "God bless the United States of America." That difference has been stable for many years now. You can check it for yourself.
Of course, both terms mean the same thing, but the flavor is different. We'll never hear a song, "The United States the Beautiful." "America" is the heartland, the fatherland/motherland. The United States is a more governmental designation. "The United States" is a member of the United Nations. "America" knows better.
Today's New York Times led with a story about the controversy swirling around a proposed Islamic center and mosque two blocks north of ground zero (Ground Zero?) in Lower Manhattan. If American politics interests you at all, there's a lot to like here.
Right in the crosshairs of this decision is the Anti-Defamation League. (Let's hear it for people who are in favor of defamation!) The League has been denouncing "bigoted attacks" on plans for the Muslim center. Finally, Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, had to say, "It's the wrong place. Find another place."
I see two interesting questions being labored over here. The first is, "Who attacked the United States by flying passenger planes into the Twin Towers?" Here is a set of correct answers. Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden. Middle Easterners. Dark-skinned people. Muslims. Religious fanatics. Only the answer "Muslims" is relevant to the controversy in New York. On the other hand, "Christians" fire-bombed Dresden.
There is a politics that gathers itself around this issue. Some of it represents the highest values of Americans. I'm going to collect them around the next question. I want to look at the others here. Sarah Palin has urged "peace-seeking Muslims" to reject the center. C. Lee Hanson, whose son Peter was killed in the attacks, said, "When I look over there and see a mosque, it's going to hurt. Build it somewhere else." Mr. Hanson, it's going to hurt wherever they put it. There needs to be a better reason to say no.
The second question is, "Who are we?" The question is asked of "us" New Yorkers and of "us" Americans. Mayor Bloomberg said, "What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?" Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, said, "Here, we ask the moderate leaders of the Muslim community to step forward, and when one of them does (he has Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed center in mind), he is treated with suspicion."
These two questions have liberal and conservative overtones, but it really isn't a liberal v. conservative question. It's an identity question. Are Muslims really Americans? Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers in Manhattan. It is supposed to have a board of directors composed of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish leaders and is supposed to be a model representing moderate Islam. Those are the "peace-seeking Muslims" Ms. Palin is asking to reject this. This is the outstretched hand we have just bitten.
Another question is, "How shall we treat the feelings of the victims' families?" That's the question that finally stumped the Anti-defamation League. The fact is that the families of the victims don't all have the same feelings. Public references to "the feelings of the families" are always about the angriest of the families. Should we "honor" those feelings? Should we "pander to" those feelings? Should we comfort those families and help them move on? Should we try to focus those feelings on Al Qaeda and not on "Muslims?"
Abraham Foxman of the ADL is a Holocaust survivor. Here's where he came out. "Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational. Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted." This same entitlement belongs to the victims' families. The proposed location is "offensive to the families of the victims of 9/11;" they should look for a site a mile away.
I'm sympathetic to the Anti-defamation League. I'm sympathetic to their organization's dilemma. I'm sympathetic to their cause. But I think what Rabbi Kula said is better, "the ADL should be ashamed of itself." As long as we are going to have feelings, we are going to have irrational feelings. There's nothing wrong with having irrational feelings. But as persons and as citizens we have a duty not to act on our irrational feelings. We need to know that they are there and to do something useful with them. That's what politics if for.
I really appreciated your rational breakdown of the issues here and, as usual, you've phrased things in a new way, giving me a perspective I never would have had.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate your not stooping to mention Palin's "refudiate" comment. Way to take the high road and stick to the real issues.
I get what you're saying here. Building a mosque at Ground Zero (I think it's earned the title caps) would be the right thing to do. It would show that we can differentiate between the good people who happen to be Muslim and the ones who use their religion to justify some pretty atrocious things.
But (you knew this was coming) Americans just aren't that sophisticated, especially when they're fed a diet rich in Muslim/Islam hatred every hour of every day. We're fighting Muslim extremists, and the key word there is Muslim. That word is used to describe our enemies all the time.
As usual, wars have to be sold to the country, and that requires some good old-fashioned hatred and bigotry. Asking Americans to now put aside all things they've been essentially told to hate for the past nine years just isn't reasonable. It's too subtle a distinction for a whole country to digest and accept at what is currently its most sacred site.
In other words, you're absolutely right, but building a Mosque at Ground Zero would be absolutely tone-deaf.
Well, you aren't the guy I want to get into a discouragement contest with. Here's where I think you can't be gainsaid (like that one?). IF we have been fed a steady diet of Muslim equals Enemy, rather than Extremist equals Enemy; and IF there is no hay to be made in moving the country past this perpetual pandering; and IF Ground Zero is still a sacred site TO NEW YORKERS, then your conclusions follow.
ReplyDeleteIt is a matter for the New York Planning Commission, right? And Mayor Bloomberg has put a few of his spare millions toward making the City safe for Muslims, right? New York is capable of doing this just to spite the Upstaters. And, of course, the rest of the country.
And when Sarah Palin--SARAH PALIN--distinguishes between "peace-loving Muslims" and "the other kind," then I think there is room even among Republicans to take this baby step toward resolution.
Of course, maybe you're right about it all and things really are as bad as you say. I think I'll just go kill myself. (Muffled sound of gunshot from offstage right).
Well, I like your view of the world a lot better than mine, but I don't think it's realistic. I'll admit that most Americans aren't this simple, but one of the pejoratives hurled at Obama during the last '08 election was that he was a Muslim. AND he cavorted with terrorists. Those statements were very deliberately related and often coupled.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Muslims who are doing the bad things are the extremists, but they are first and foremost Muslims. This is a country increasingly defined by Judeo-Christian culture. Islam is . . . weird. It's different. And I'll bet if you asked most Americans they'd say that the Koran says that all non-Muslims should be killed.
That, at the end of the day, is what Americans think Islam is all about.
I talked with Kathie about this today and she said that this should be up to New Yorkers. I don't disagree that it SHOULD be up to them, but it was a national tragedy and we have embraced it so much that it's now part of our identity. It's just too bad most Americans have bought the wrong story.
-Doug
Dear Dale:
ReplyDeleteThank you for such a wise and nuanced parsing of this story...and thank you for mentioning me. It has been an interesting last 36 hours with the vast majority of comments far less sober than yours.
Keep writing...I for one am a reader...
Irwin Kula
I guess I should just say hello first, Irwin. Lisa said you were reading the blog, but somehow I didn't connect the actual person in the Times story with Lisa's friend. I'm glad you found my perspective useful. This issue is going to show up next in my political psychology course this fall. Will I be able to follow it on your blog?
ReplyDeleteI come at American politics from a teaching standpoint and my first goal is to see why the various people feel the way they do because ordinarily, people do what they think is in their interest. My second goal is to try to get my students to off-load the baggage they brought to class and try to see it the same way. The project you are involved with is a very rich source for me because the issues are so emotional.
Thanks for the note. It means a lot to me that you took the trouble to comment. I hope your next 36 hours are a little easier.
Dad, been thinking a good bit about the arguments you used. I raised this topic with a friend who was passionately suggesting that the Muslims would be insensitive to build it anywhere near “ground zero.” I found myself using some of the same arguments that you put in place, which was fun. I felt clever when I came up with the idea that a Christian church shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oklahoma City bombing, but turns out many others have been using that argument also (damn you, Bing). I was really taken with your concentric circles around the identity of the attackers that should be filtered near ground zero: Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden. Middle Easterners. Dark-skinned people. Muslims. Really attractive because one is forced to pick one and none of them is very satisfying. I think people would agree that Al Qaeda and Osama are good ones to filter. The others are hopelessly unhelpful…and they should have mosques to pray in. If you asked the question “should Muslims have an opportunity to invest in the community where they live, even if it is downtown NY?”, one would have a hard time objecting to that one (except those of us who think about a tax free usage of land in Manhattan and what it does to the tax base, but that goes for any church in a desirable location). Very thoughtful stuff. Thank you for writing it.
ReplyDelete