This is Terry Jones. He made the news recently by proposing that an appropriate way to mark the anniversary of the terrorist acts of 9/11/01 would be to pile up a bunch of Korans and set fire to them. If they were completely consumed (holo- refers to "completely") he would have conducted a holocaust. I don't know the man, but I suspect that would please him.This is Don Browning, a candidate for Congress. I had never heard of him before either. I found this campaign poster on one of the pages I went to to try to find out who Terry Jones is. I'd love to know why he wanted his campaign for Congress to be associated with Koran-burning.
The Reverend Dr. Jones supports his proposed holocaust by saying that "it will send a message." No question about that, I guess. It will send a message. I wonder if he thinks he can control what message will be sent and to whom and how they will respond.
In this post, I want to try to suggest how serious a threat this is. The Gainesville, Florida Fire Department has refused to grant the church a permit to burn. I don't think that matters very much. The National Association of Evangelicals, unquestionably a conservative religious organization (although not as conservative as they used to be) has condemned the Koran-burning plan. I don't think that matters very much. Billy Graham condemns the proposed torching. I don't think it matters very much. Naturally, the whole liberal end of the spectrum condemns it. I don't think that matters at all.
Here's why I think it's serious: the answer we give will determine the question that has been asked. Let me say that again. The precise meaning of the question will be determined over time all over the world by people who are looking at the answers. I'll tell you frankly, I don't think the United States can afford to get this one wrong. It hasn't been that long since we rounded up all the Americans of Japanese descent we could find and put them in concentration camps because they were Japanese. It's crucial that the Japanese don't rule East Asia, you see, because they are racist.
I haven't read Franz Fanon's book The Wretched of the Earth for a long time. I haven't even thought about it for a long time. Until recently. It was from Fanon that I learned how Algeria became independent from France. I'm going to tell the story the way I remember it. I am quite certain that this account is correct in the main.
Until the early 1960's Algeria was a part of France. Algerians liked being part of France. To make this plausible, we have to remember that the genius of French politics is that being "French" is a matter of culture and language. not race and geography. You can look like anything you like (provided you aren't veiling your face) if you're "really French." Many of the Algerian elites were "really French" and they liked it. The question really was, "Are Algerians in general--not just the Francophile elites--French?" The official answer was, of course, "Yes."
Beginning in the mid-1950s a group of Algenian separatists decided that their goal of an independent Algeria could never be achieved so long as Algerians in general were content (not rioting) with the current situation; they decided that the masses would be content so long as France observed all the formal affirmations. I don't know if any French politicians really referred to "our little brown Algerian brothers," but you get the idea. I'm going to use a nasty racist term in a couple of paragraphs. You can start getting ready for it now, if it takes you a while to get ready, or you can stop reading now if you don't want to read it.
The separatists (terrorists)lauched a series of attacks on everything French. Very much like the 9/11 terrorists, they aimed at commerce (New York), defense (Virginia) and the White House (D.C.) There weren't very many Algerian terrorists and they didn't represent the majority opinion in Algeria, but they did manage to change the question.
The French response was indiscriminate and violent. A lot of people were arrested, many were jailed, quite a few were tortured (Jack Bauer, are you getting this?). The French were answering the question, "Can we restore law and order?" But the question their actions raised was a different one entirely. It was this: "Are Algerians wogs?" Are they "natives," are they "locals," are they "hajis, are they "not us?"
Only the terrorists were asking that question before the wholly disproportionate French retaliation and now it was posed for all Algerians. "Are we really French" was shoved aside and "Are we really just wogs" was substituted. It isn't a question with a good answer. The only way to prevent the answer is to prevent the question. If the question "Are Algerians wogs" is going to be asked, the answer is going to be "Yes, they are." What the French military did in Algeria took away from the French government the control they had exercised over what the question is to be. If the French treat everyone who "looks Algerian" like a wog, then Algerians are not "really French" and never were. There is something about being arrested for "driving while Algerian" that stings for a long time. (Gov. Brewer of Arizona, are you listening?)
I have no idea what ought to happen to the Reverend Dr. Terry Jones. Should he be picketed by hordes of outraged Baptists? Should northern tourists plan to avoid Gainesville, even during the football season? Should groups of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims attend the church services arm in arm and chanting peaceful slogans? Probably not. I'm not much of a tactician, but those don't look hopeful to me.
Whatever it is we do, it needs to declare an unending enmity toward terrorists and a warm embrace of Islam. Whatever we do, the question has be be, "Are American Muslims, "us?" and the answer has to be "Yes." This answer from the government will not be sufficient. The answer from the major religious organizations will not be sufficient. "America"--that's a term I don't use very often--needs to embrace Muslim Americans. If we do not, we will lose control of the question the way the French government did. If we follow Pastor Jones's case, the question will be "Are Muslims wogs?" and I say here what I said above, that all answers to that question are disastrous. The only hope is to prevent the question from being asked. And the only way to do that is to insist on a better question. It can be phrased in any of a dozen ways and they would all work. My favorite is, "Are Muslims 'us'?"
Someone is going to object, "Well, not ALL Muslims are us." Fine. However we treat Protestants because of the crimes committed by their radicals, however we treat Jews because of the crimes committed by their radicals, however we treat Catholics because of the crimes committeed by their radicals, (and so on) will be acceptable to me. The question, "Are Protestants really 'us'?" has probably not been asked even once since 1630. Maybe in Mary Land back in the old days.
Just remember this. If the question goes bad, the answer will be attributed to us all.
In this post, I want to try to suggest how serious a threat this is. The Gainesville, Florida Fire Department has refused to grant the church a permit to burn. I don't think that matters very much. The National Association of Evangelicals, unquestionably a conservative religious organization (although not as conservative as they used to be) has condemned the Koran-burning plan. I don't think that matters very much. Billy Graham condemns the proposed torching. I don't think it matters very much. Naturally, the whole liberal end of the spectrum condemns it. I don't think that matters at all.
Here's why I think it's serious: the answer we give will determine the question that has been asked. Let me say that again. The precise meaning of the question will be determined over time all over the world by people who are looking at the answers. I'll tell you frankly, I don't think the United States can afford to get this one wrong. It hasn't been that long since we rounded up all the Americans of Japanese descent we could find and put them in concentration camps because they were Japanese. It's crucial that the Japanese don't rule East Asia, you see, because they are racist.
I haven't read Franz Fanon's book The Wretched of the Earth for a long time. I haven't even thought about it for a long time. Until recently. It was from Fanon that I learned how Algeria became independent from France. I'm going to tell the story the way I remember it. I am quite certain that this account is correct in the main.
Until the early 1960's Algeria was a part of France. Algerians liked being part of France. To make this plausible, we have to remember that the genius of French politics is that being "French" is a matter of culture and language. not race and geography. You can look like anything you like (provided you aren't veiling your face) if you're "really French." Many of the Algerian elites were "really French" and they liked it. The question really was, "Are Algerians in general--not just the Francophile elites--French?" The official answer was, of course, "Yes."
Beginning in the mid-1950s a group of Algenian separatists decided that their goal of an independent Algeria could never be achieved so long as Algerians in general were content (not rioting) with the current situation; they decided that the masses would be content so long as France observed all the formal affirmations. I don't know if any French politicians really referred to "our little brown Algerian brothers," but you get the idea. I'm going to use a nasty racist term in a couple of paragraphs. You can start getting ready for it now, if it takes you a while to get ready, or you can stop reading now if you don't want to read it.
The separatists (terrorists)lauched a series of attacks on everything French. Very much like the 9/11 terrorists, they aimed at commerce (New York), defense (Virginia) and the White House (D.C.) There weren't very many Algerian terrorists and they didn't represent the majority opinion in Algeria, but they did manage to change the question.
The French response was indiscriminate and violent. A lot of people were arrested, many were jailed, quite a few were tortured (Jack Bauer, are you getting this?). The French were answering the question, "Can we restore law and order?" But the question their actions raised was a different one entirely. It was this: "Are Algerians wogs?" Are they "natives," are they "locals," are they "hajis, are they "not us?"
Only the terrorists were asking that question before the wholly disproportionate French retaliation and now it was posed for all Algerians. "Are we really French" was shoved aside and "Are we really just wogs" was substituted. It isn't a question with a good answer. The only way to prevent the answer is to prevent the question. If the question "Are Algerians wogs" is going to be asked, the answer is going to be "Yes, they are." What the French military did in Algeria took away from the French government the control they had exercised over what the question is to be. If the French treat everyone who "looks Algerian" like a wog, then Algerians are not "really French" and never were. There is something about being arrested for "driving while Algerian" that stings for a long time. (Gov. Brewer of Arizona, are you listening?)
I have no idea what ought to happen to the Reverend Dr. Terry Jones. Should he be picketed by hordes of outraged Baptists? Should northern tourists plan to avoid Gainesville, even during the football season? Should groups of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims attend the church services arm in arm and chanting peaceful slogans? Probably not. I'm not much of a tactician, but those don't look hopeful to me.
Whatever it is we do, it needs to declare an unending enmity toward terrorists and a warm embrace of Islam. Whatever we do, the question has be be, "Are American Muslims, "us?" and the answer has to be "Yes." This answer from the government will not be sufficient. The answer from the major religious organizations will not be sufficient. "America"--that's a term I don't use very often--needs to embrace Muslim Americans. If we do not, we will lose control of the question the way the French government did. If we follow Pastor Jones's case, the question will be "Are Muslims wogs?" and I say here what I said above, that all answers to that question are disastrous. The only hope is to prevent the question from being asked. And the only way to do that is to insist on a better question. It can be phrased in any of a dozen ways and they would all work. My favorite is, "Are Muslims 'us'?"
Someone is going to object, "Well, not ALL Muslims are us." Fine. However we treat Protestants because of the crimes committed by their radicals, however we treat Jews because of the crimes committed by their radicals, however we treat Catholics because of the crimes committeed by their radicals, (and so on) will be acceptable to me. The question, "Are Protestants really 'us'?" has probably not been asked even once since 1630. Maybe in Mary Land back in the old days.
Just remember this. If the question goes bad, the answer will be attributed to us all.
Boy, I really like this one, Pop. I think clearly defining the question now, publicly and often, would help serve as a touchstone moving forward. I think the problem--okay, one of the problems--is that no one is asking clarifying and defining questions.
ReplyDeleteBut honestly, I'm a little afraid of the answer. The U.S. has only become more conservative, more entrenched in what it thinks its religion wants us to do. The more we're challenged by people with a different bible, the louder we thump ours.
And our biggest problem is that we've been able to forgive, or at least look past, the sins of the Protestants, the Jews, Catholics, etc. because (1) they look like us (2) they act like us and (3) we know what's in their bibles.
But Muslims are the perfect bad guys. They look profilably different, they talk funny, they wear funny clothes, and we, as a culture, have absolutely no idea what's in their bibles. We've heard the juicy bits that terrorists selectively quote and act on (just as extremist Christians have done with our bible), but not much else.
We've been told that Mohammad was a terrorist (thank you, Pat Robertson) and that Muslims must kill all non-Muslims. Hmmm.
So we have a really serious problem here. Accepting the Irish and Germans and Scots etc. in the early part of the 20th century was one thing. Accepting people who look so different and act so differently, who pray funny, and who have people in their ranks who want to kill us is going to be a tall order.
-Doug
Doug, I have lost two substantial reponses to your comment. I don't know where they are. I think I am going to email them to you. The one thing I wanted to say here, because your text is just up the page, is that your use of "different" and "differently" in the last paragraph made me get up from my desk and walt around the block glowing with paternal pride. Bette just said, "His father's son."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm so glad to have given you a moment of pride. It almost makes up for having to raise me, eh?
ReplyDelete