Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

44% seems accurate to me. The United States has a history of interning minorities for whatever reason. Why should the Arab-Americans be different?

Aldous.

Aldous

Anti Americanism should be well informed.

Things only make sense when put into context.

Majorities of the very tolerant Dutch say they fear foreigners, especially Muslims. The French ban Muslim headscarves and the militantly anti-immigrant party of LePen came in second place in the last presidential election. Opinion polls throughout the world find similar things. It is not primarily an American problem.

Speaking of Muslims in America, there are several million Muslims and more than 2000 mosques in the United States, and at least 400 Islamic schools. According to a Zogby poll, 79% of American Muslims are registered voters and 58% are college graduates. Half make more than $50,000 per year, which is almost 20% more than the average American income. http://www.projectmaps.com/PMReport.htm. I have not research comparable figures in Europe, but I can’t believe they are anywhere near as good.

As for you history of internment, once again compare. At the same time the U.S. was interning Japanese and Japanese Americans, several European continental countries were killing millions of minorities in concentration camps. And let’s not forget the empires they were running. The history of the French in Algeria is particularly interesting in today’s context. The Japanese at this same time were marching and starving Americans to their death on the baton death march or murdering thousands in China. You may recall the rape of Nanking, where they stacked up severed head. The piles were big. This was in the decade following the terror famines in Ukraine, which killed perhaps ten million. In the next decade you would have the Cultural Revolution, which killed tens of millions. After that … you get the point.

I am willing to hold the U.S. to a higher standard, as long as everyone recognizes that it is indeed a HIGHER standard. The world standard is, indeed, unacceptably low.

By the way, some aspects of discrimination are just in the perception. I have been given the compete special check at the airport three times. My twelve-year-old son and seventeen-year-old daughter were also targeted on separate occasions. We don’t travel that much, so that means that some member of our family is closely scrutinized almost every time we travel. Are the authorities discriminating against us?

Excellent article Sebastian. I suspect that poll represents America’s frustration with the Bush administration’s inept, casual, and sometimes outright hostile, attitude toward homeland security.

[sigh] Someday we’ll have an integrated terrorist watch-list and Jack’s family will no longer be subject to unnecessary (if not totally illegal) detainment and searches by federal security agents.

AP

I don’t mind the searches, but I do object to everyone taking off their shoes. After some hours of travel, the Dr Scholl’s foot powder has worn off.

I am concerned that the US is becoming the monster it is fighting. The fact that anyone who questions is labeled as unamerican and unpatriotic should scare people.

Aldous.

Good post, Sebastian, and good comments above as well.

I think Aldous…

I am concerned that the US is becoming the monster it is fighting.

…and Jack…

I am willing to hold the U.S. to a higher standard, as long as everyone recognizes that it is indeed a HIGHER standard. The world standard is, indeed, unacceptably low.

…both make very good points. This morning, I was reading from Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (see post at http://instantreplay.blogspot.com), and his prescriptions for government by power and fear seem to be followed closely by American regimes of both parties. Though we have never fully realized them, the U.S. Constitution contains the most commendable set of political precepts ever collected. We would do well to follow more closely both the letter and spirit of that Constitution, granting freedom to all and recognizing the great dignity bestowed on humans not by their government but by their Creator.

Muslim Americans, as has been noted, are just the latest victims of the witch-hunts, and they will survive and thrive, just as Asian-Americans, socialists, labor unionists, abolitionists, and every other mistrusted group has. America has a short memory, and perhaps the best comfort we can give to Muslim Americans is that our children won’t fear their children.

Sebastian,

Let’s try a slightly different flavor. Suppose I’m concerned about the threat Timothy McVeigh’s behavior implies:

B) Churches should be closely monitered and surveilled by U.S. law enforcement agencies

C) U.S. government agencies should profile citizens as potential threats based on being Christian or having Mid Western heritage

D) Christian civic and volunteer organizations should be infiltrated by undercover law enforcement agents to keep watch on their activities and fundraising

Still feel these are borderline or not really threatening civil liberties?

Aldous

Opposing U.S. policies, not liking the president or just being sick of American culture is not anti-American. Opposition strays into unreasonableness when it becomes reflexive and ignores the merit of the charges. In geometry it takes two points to define a line. Something’s size makes sense only in relation to other things. I saw a man, about six feet tall, who claimed to be the world’s shortest giant. What does that mean?

The example I like to use is swimmers. Swimmers might range from the Olympic champion to someone who can barely swim across a child’s pool, but no swimmer can swim from California to Hawaii. Does it make sense to judge the Olympic champion as a poor swimmer because he can’t swim to Hawaii? Everything in the universe has meaning only in relation to something else. Statements out of context are misleading.

The comment about internments, although exaggerated was not wrong at some levels, BUT it was gratuitous in this situation and it lacked context. Ironically, it showed the same type of stereotyping we are saying is done to Muslims. It is true that 100% of the 9/11 highjackers were Muslims. There are contexts where it is useful and appropriate to bring that up but is it fair or useful to bring that up in every conversation about Islam?

Unfortunately, frequently repeated accusations often become accepted without consideration even when the facts are different. Immediately after 9/11, President Bush stressed Americans do not consider terrorists to be true Muslims, and we do not consider true Muslims to be terrorists. President Bush visits mosques across America and meets with Islamic spiritual leaders. Iftar and Eid are celebrated every year at the White House. Imams deliver prayers at the opening of our Congress. Compared to some ideal, I guess this is not enough. But it isn’t bad compared to …

It is hard for any country to figure out what to do about this situation.
Complaints seem to be that Muslims are not assimilating. They are moving to countries, staying together in groups and making their own little ‘worlds’ inside their new countries.(Not all of them of course)
The reason I am looking forward to a big change in the Middle East is so Muslim people no longer feel like they have to run to other countries to be free.
I do have a problem with groups of people who make a home in a new country and try to change it to be like the one they ran away from.

“Let’s try a slightly different flavor. Suppose I’m concerned about the threat Timothy McVeigh’s behavior implies:”

Now you are making the error that I rail against about percentage of Muslims who hold certain beliefs in the other direction.

The percentage of Muslims who are dangerously Islamist is certainly low enough to avoid a registry. However it is certainly higer than McVeigh-like Christians. Being honest about numbers is the only way we are ever going to get a chance at a rational and useful policy.

bugcrazy,
“Complaints seem to be that Muslims are not assimilating.”

Jack’s first post on this thread would seem to fly in the face of your logic. The high percentage registering to vote and graduating from collage would indicate that they are assimilating quite well.
As would the higher than average saleries.

Jack,
Maybe I don’t recall my history correctly but I only remember Germany placing folks in concentration camps in Europe. I know that Russia put German troops in pow camps, but I don’t know that I would call those concentration camps, and I don’t know that I would call two countries several.

Rocky

I don’t have a problem with Muslim immigrants and believe that they are assimilating quite fine, thank you. The strength of America is how welcoming it is to immigrants. Muslims are the latest. We really don’t have a problem, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. Muslims are not assimilating nearly as well in Europe, which is also very interesting to note.

As for the camps.

The Germans ran camps and exterminated millions of people. The Soviet gulags were similar and Stalin managed to kill even more people. We are talking tens of millions of people. This is the time of the greatest genocides in human history. Nazi and Soviet allies and vassal states also participated. This included most of the countries of Europe at one time or another. Vichy France and Quisling Norway were repudiated by subsequent generations, but they still represented native fascist regimes. European colonial empires were often run in ways that make the Japanese internment look very tame. The brutality of the Chinese and Japanese was legendary.

The point that we could easily make is this. If you were to be an unloved minority in any polity of the world in 1942, the best place to be would probably have been Ireland, Canada or New Zealand. After that, you were safest in the United States, Australia or the Britain (but not the empire). Everyplace else was worse, sometime spectacularly so. That is the context. Actually, the line up is not that different today, although the world is much safer in general.

If we scrutinize the U.S. during this period, we also have to look at the others. The U.S. looks bad, except in comparison to all the other countries in the world.

I used to let these points go, thinking that – of course – everyone knew the history. But I have come to understand that most people really don’t.

Good Post. Maybe you right wingers aren’t Nazis after all.:)

Rocky,

I was not speaking of the U.S. specifically - I said ‘countries’.
Most of the complaints I spoke of are coming out of Europe.

You know, arguing amongst yourselves is surely not productive. You’re preaching to the choir! I invite everyone for a good ol fashion ass kicking to the Political Animal, a place infested with liberal wackos and elitists who ain’t afraid of showing their useless knowledge of trivial and Broadway shows.

So come on….Bring It!

I object to most Ashcroftian tactics not only on the basis of their compromise of our freedoms, but also since most of those tactics just bring in more useless information than they weed out.

I don’t believe Muslims should have to put up with being harrassed over their religion, and I think that will aggravate, not ameliorate the problems that jihadi islamists would like to introduce into our population. We should not fear our fellow citizens in the Muslim community, we should regard their lives, in ever sense, as precious as their own.

The whole debate seems silly to me. The fact is that reguardless of poll results,
1)Muslims do not and will not have to register with the goverment.
2)Profiling is used by law enforcement everyday. It would be tough for them to find a robbery suspect without looking for someone!
3)Law enforcement can try to monitor anybody they want to.
4)Law enforcement infiltrates civic organizations all the time, ie when monitoring the mafia they join the IA or Sons of Italy.

Kenny Mac-

On point 1:
That, unfortunately, can change.

On point 2:
Profiling is like searching for a needle in haystack by piling more hay on it. Most of the time, you get the people responsible by looking at the evidence, not by treating everybody who shares a certain appearance or religion as a suspect.

On point 3:
No, they cannot. In our society we have a little thing called privacy. People have to show cause to demonstrate why the intrusion is being done. In certain places, one gives implied consent to be observed and searched. You imply consent to be given a breathalyzer test when you get behind the wheel. You imply consent to be caught on video when you go into a place with surveillance cameras. You imply consent to be featured in promotional videos and other publications when you buy a ticket. Read the fine print on it.

Regardless, the powers of the police in this society are circumscribe, if they do not have probable cause or evidence to justify a warrant.

which brings me to 4)

Point 4:
Yes, they infiltrate organizations when there is suspicion of a crime being committed.

If the police have found that a group has ties to a person involved with the terrorists, they are justified in putting somebody in there. But if they have done nothing but taken a minority opinion of things, and no links to criminal or terrorist organizations can be demonstrated, then the officers are need elsewhere, and really, people have a right to be left alone when they haven’t done anything wrong.