Because 1.3 Billion People All Look the Same

by Latoya Peterson

Take a look at this cover:

What is the impression you get from the photo accompanying the headline?

Kabobfest asks if the cover is racist.

Fatemeh, when she forwarded the Kabobfest link to me, said she thinks it is racist AND islamaphobic.

After checking out the source of the photo, the articles accompanying this issue of the American Interest don’t look too promising either:

What Do Muslims Think? amir taheri
Unprecedented intellectual ferment in the Muslim world is likely to have a happier ending than many Westerners suppose.

The Irrelevance of the Middle East philip e. auerswald
Neither our ‘energy insecurity’ nor the danger of terrorism is all it’s cracked up to be. The Middle East just isn’t that strategically important.

I’m throwing in my bid for racist, islamaphobic, and xenophobic – after all, they are playing up that fear of the scary ethnic “other” from a foreign land.

Thoughts?

—

Please note: I tend to get tons of static for covering Muslim issues here, many of the issues stemming from the fact that “Muslim” is not a race. And yes, I am well aware that a group of adherents of the same religion are not necessarily of one set race. However, the treatment of Islam in the media (and the subsequent discrimination that manifests against Muslims) is racialized. So, we cover it. Also, the fact that Islam is associated with one set group of people (with one set look) is problematic in itself.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Self Preservation « Aaminah Hernández on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:51 pm

[...] Stop telling me I am the racist every time I point out your racism. Really, it’s just old, and it’s a very weak [...]
A Face for Islam? » Islam on My Side on 01 May 2008 at 10:32 am

[...] is purposefully intimidating, thereby promoting Islamophobia. People are also sounding off over at Racialicious. What do you think? « September 11th Cartoons | [...]

Comments

dnA wrote:

Yeah, that’s Islam. Islam O’Malley. That mother owes me five dollars. I’m just glad FP magazine found him, because he wasn’t like to pay me back.

As a side note, how about a series of books called “Where’s Islam?” where the main character, Islam, is hidden in various odd ways througout two dozen or so odd pages of tableaus of various random locations?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:12 am ¶
kd wrote:

I think the cover is “Racist.” However you have to think about how racist a stereotypical image is. You might say it’s wrong to have an image like this with the title; but on the flip side what’s wrong with being dark/brown with a beard, wearing a skullcap and being muslim…Nothing. Even though the image is a stylized image of the scary muslim/terrorist, you have to be careful about accepting the idea that looking like the stereotypical muslim is bad.

What’s “racist” is the implication, made by using images and words. I get so heated, for example when people say “why do they show all black people is baggy jeans and timbs, we’re not all like that.” Again what wrong with wearing baggy jeans and timbs…nothing. What’s really bad is the implication that baggy jeans equal blacks equal criminals. Just like dark w/beard equals bad muslim equals terrorist

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:15 am ¶
shirky wrote:

who’s the guy on the cover? should I know? I don’t.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:33 am ¶
jayjay wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the magazine trying to say the threat posed by anti-american militants in the muslim world is overblown? That the fear evoked by the image of the man on the cover in the minds of many “westerners” is irrational?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:35 am ¶
fatima wrote:

Honestly, as a Muslim, I didn’t think it was racist at first glance.. but then I thought about it! Firstly, it’s just confusing. If that guy were not staring into the camera intensely, he’d just look like a normal Muslim man. What are they trying to convey? It’s racist if, by putting any Muslim with an intent face on the cover, they’re trying to evoke fear. If they’ve made the assumption that Muslims with serious looks on their faces are inherently frightening, then yes, it’s racist and Islamophobic.

They’d have done better to put a picture of a terrorist attack or something on the cover – if that’s what they were referring to. Not some random guy.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:38 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@jayjay -

The article is locked, but the intro paragraphs go into discussing the rise of “radical Islam” and how most scholars and politicans 20 years ago would have never seen this coming.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:41 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

What is the impression you get from the photo accompanying the headline?

Islam is…. hot like fiyah? Anyways, I was thinking the other day about how diverse the appearance of the people that they’re stereotyping is in and of itself, and how that one set “stereotypically Muslim” look encompasses everyone from Latinos to Mediterraneans/Iberians to Desis to Eurasians to somewhat fair-skinned black Americans, to Pacific Islanders — groups who have all had members profiled as potential threats to homeland security post 9/11, and groups that all contain significant amounts of non-Muslims. The question itself is problematic, implying that if he “is Islam”, that there’s some kind of problem.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:51 am ¶
dnA wrote:

It’s tremendously racist. The face is nameless, it’s just an angry looking arab guy with a beard, upon which we are supposed to graft all knoweldge, identity and responsiblity for Islamic extremism.

He is not a known terrorist, someone who we would recognize and therefore associate with specific deeds, he’s just some dude. The underlying premise of the cover is that anyone who looks a certain way is a terrorist.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:53 am ¶
Feminist Punk! wrote:

As a Muslim American/British Muslim,

my answer is:

yes, it’s racist.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
Aaminah wrote:

I think the intent is to scare… to say “if this is the face of Islam we’re screwed… but the good news is that actually those Mozzies aren’t as important as they think they are anyway”

Yes, this is a face (not *the* face, but *a* face) of Islam. And a very attractive face, I might add. There is nothing wrong with a man wearing the beard that is part of the way of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Nothing wrong with him wearing a kufi. Nothing wrong with the fact that he is dark skinned with dark “intense” eyes.

Yes, it is racist/xenophobic/islamophobic etc. Because it is using fear as a tool. And the articles aren’t helping, because saying that the Middle East and Muslims are irrelevent to the world is also pretty bloody xenophobic.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
Feminist Punk! wrote:

Remember the 1994/95 TIME cover of OJ Simpson? As a “scary, evil Black man” ???

Yeah. Exactly.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:12 am ¶
Feminist Punk! wrote:

Please note: I tend to get tons of static for covering Muslim issues here, many of the issues stemming from the fact that “Muslim” is not a race.

Hold up. It’s not racially relevant to discuss Muslim issues here, but it’s totally acceptable to dedicate a whole thread to Jewish Americans?

Uh, ok?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:19 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Feminist Punk! –

Most of the static I read or received is from practicing Muslims who don’t feel like Muslim issues should be discussed on a race site. FWIW.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:28 am ¶
Ali wrote:

Hahaha, “Islam O’Malley.” I’m dying laughing right now! I vote yes on the “Where’s Waldo” style book. Wholesome fun for kids and adults! This image totally reminds me of that Time Magazine cover of an ominously darkened Orenthal.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:38 am ¶
Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

Feminist Punk, I couldn’t agree more with the contrast you drew between the Time Magazine OJ cover and this cover…

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:47 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Aaminah–Yes, it is racist/xenophobic/islamophobic etc. Because it is using fear as a tool. And the articles aren’t helping, because saying that the Middle East and Muslims are irrelevent to the world is also pretty bloody xenophobic.

Co-sign, friend.

@ Jamerican Muslimah and Feminist Punk–co-sign with the comparison of this cover and Time’s OJ cover.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

…oops, sorry about not putting quotes around your quote, Aaminah.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 12:08 pm ¶
Aisha wrote:

As an African Muslim, I think it is racist. While the intent is to scare, you have to think about following 9/11, most parodies about terrorism and those who perpetuate it have always used an image of that nature consisting of a bearded Arab man who rarely smiles. But on the flip side, they’re also asking that since “most Islamic radicals look like this”, is this the future of the religion?

You can’t be too careful about how you deliver a message these days because at the end of the day, someone is always going to be offended no matter what. Someone’s going to complain that you’re being too PC, or someone’s going to complain that you’re being too blunt and therefore insensitive.

I don’t think too much of it, because I would expect an American periodical or publisher to release something of that nature. Although on a completely unrelated note, that young Arab man certainly is fine.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 12:59 pm ¶
Persia wrote:

To me, the apparent content of the article combined with the cover makes this racist and offensive. I wonder how I’d feel about the cover if the article answered the question “no,” and talked about the different races and cultural practices of Muslims– either in the US or around the world. Would the cover still be offensive because of the ‘angry Muslim man,’ or would it be more subversive then?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Even as I write this I know this comment is going to bring down collective wrath of everyone on my head. The west is at war both militarily and culturally with terrorists whose animating philosophy is Islam. This is a fact. To the terrorist it matters not who or what you are. If you’re not one of “them” you are an enemy. That’s a rather supremacist mindset isn’t it?You can argue whether or not the Islam used as justification for terrorist act is the “real” Islam. But what cannot be argued against is that terrorists cite the Koran to support their actions. Islam encompasses many racial groups worldwide but it seems to be that it’s mainly men from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan ,Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia that are commiting terrorist acts against the west and it’s allies. So is it racist to depict this young man on the cover and ask if he’s the face of Islam? Would it be racist to depict a young white man with a shaved head and ask if he’s the face of racism? If terrorist acts were being primarily commited by Swedes or Japanese people would it be racist to ask if a photo of a young man of either group is the face of terrorism? In my opinion the answer is no. It may make some of us uncomfortable that a specific behavior (like terrorism) is being linked to a specific group. I understand that. But why are we overlooking the supremacism inherent in the statements and actions of the terrorists? Are we supposed to for the sake of PC pretend that a few men that look like this young man aren’t commiting terrorist acts? Who then should be depicted on that cover?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:

Tony, perhaps you would like to look at what the definition of “terrorist” is to begin with. Then you might realize that white men (often in suits) are actually the predominant terrorists of the world. They far out-number any other type of terrorism out there.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 1:36 pm ¶
tonyfig1@verizon.net wrote:

Aaminah, I hope we can all agree that a “terrorist” is a person who uses inflicts terror on a population or a specific group of individuals through the use of actual violence, implied violence and threats which are intended to evoke a feeling of fear and terror in it’s intended victim(s). I never said that this type of activity was the sole domain of any group. However the initial post was specifically about the cover depicting a young Muslim so I kept my comment specific to that. Terrorism is a weapon that destroys lives and it’s not excusable no matter who wields it. Your comment that “white men (often in suits) are actually the predominant terrorists of the world” strikes me as racist and a broad brush condemnation of whites. I hope that is not reflective of your mindset and the principle guiding your behavior towards whites in general.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
james wrote:

No.
The cover is posing a question. Is this Islam? the question it raises is challenging the perceived notion of Islam crafted by the media through constant reports of Islamic terrorism which is typically represented by someone who looks like the man on the cover. It there to ask a curious question and to challenge one’s concept of an Islamic man. I kinda want to read that article now… Mission Accomplished

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 1:56 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“Would it be racist to depict a young white man with a shaved head and ask if he’s the face of racism?”

Please don’t act like this claim wouldn’t be made, and vociferously, at that.

“If terrorist acts were being primarily commited by Swedes or Japanese people would it be racist to ask if a photo of a young man of either group is the face of terrorism?”

Conclusion jump/unequal analogy. The magazine doesn’t even ask if the dude is “fundamentalist Islam”, let alone terrorism. Perhaps the equivalent would be asking if a shorn-haired, dour-faced young white guy were “the face of Christianity.” I don’t know about you, Tony, but I’d think that that would upset a quite a few people for a lot of different reasons.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:05 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Tony & James – You can both follow the links to the articles I provided in the text. Please pay attention to BOTH articles. The opening description of the first article shows promise, but the articles are locked, so I can’t be sure.

Tony – and you’re telling me an article with a vaguely menacing image of a man who fits the *stereotype* of a militant Muslim presented as a cover in our current political environment is not racist, but Aaminah’s statement is?

I call bs on that one for a few reasons:

1. A lot of people would consider our government leaders and the heads of the IMF/WTO/WB as terrorists. They fit the description of white men (and one black woman) in suits.

2. There is a set stereotype of a terrorist that they are playing to, even though most terrorist organizations have shifted their recruitment as a way of ducking the stereotypes. I remember reading an article that associated terror cells with regions in China. But as long as we perpetuate that terrorists look one way, dress one way, have one belief system, we are in danger of missing a true threat – and persecuting a lot of innocent people along the way.
And

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“Your comment that “white men (often in suits) are actually the predominant terrorists of the world” strikes me as racist and a broad brush condemnation of whites.”

But isn’t she doing the same thing that you were just arguing in favor of — “linking a specific behavior (like terrorism) to a specific group,” no matter how uncomfortable it makes people ? Why is it not racist when it’s done to others, but racist when Aaminah does it to whites?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“There is a set stereotype of a terrorist that they are playing to, even though most terrorist organizations have shifted their recruitment as a way of ducking the stereotypes.”

This is true. Terrorists ain’t stupid, ya’ll. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they completely exploited this stereotype and used a decoy “stereotypical Muslim” to take attention off of their Nordic/Sub-Saharan African/E. Asian suicide bomber.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:18 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Latoya, let’s take your first point: for the sake of argument let’s say that white men in suits(as per your description) are terrorists. Ok, fine and dandy. But does their terrorism excuse terrorism committed by non whites? Are the reprehensible acts of one group automatic justification for the equally immoral acts of another? Is that your argument Latoya?

Your second point: I never said that terrorism was an exclusively Islamic venture. It is a weapon that has been wielded by diverse hands throughout history. However we are dealing with terrorists who seem to primarily emanate from either the Middle East or Afghanistan and Pakistan. I agree that the current conflict does play into the hands of racists and xenophobes here and abroad but that doesn’t change the uncomfortable facts about the ethnic identities of the terrorists we’re facing does it? Instead of trying to pretend that the ethnicity of terrorists is irrelevant wouldn’t it be instructive to learn why they are on this destructive path in the first place?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:22 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ TonyFig–I’m with Aaminah sentiment about looking into the definition of terrorism. What clarified this for me is Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism.” It explains how the Chicago School of Economics, spearheaded by Milton Friedman and his students, spread the idea of abruptly dismantling politico-economic systems in coutries such as Russia, Poland, China, South Africa, Argentina, and, Iraq…

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:22 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“Why is it not racist when it’s done to others, but racist when Aaminah does it to whites?”

And if you answer this question with any variation of “but they deserve it!” Tony, you’re getting the buzzer.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:23 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

Jeez Looo-eez, I can’t type. Let me try this again:

@ TonyFig–I’m with Aaminah’s statement about looking into the definition of terrorism. What clarified this for me is Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.” She explains how the Chicago School of Economics, led and supported by Milton Friedman and his students, spread this idea of abruptly dismantling politico-economic systems in countries such as Russia, Poland, China, South Africa, Argentina, and yeah, Iraq.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:30 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Tony –

Please engage with what I said. No one is excusing terrorist acts. This cover fails because it says “Is this what Islam looks like?” and plays into the stereotypes of a terrorist. That is why the headline reads “Because 1.3 Billion people look the same.” If it was really about Islam, why not use any of the hundreds of other photos of Muslims? The cover blatantly plays on a stereotype.

Also, if you’re going to scream about global terrorism, please keep up. Aside from what our news blasts on a continual loop about in terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan (destablized areas, mind), a lot of terrorist cells have moved into Asia and Northern Africa. Why? Because people are looking for them based on these bullshit stereotypes. So if they set up bases in places where Islam is growing, pervert the message, and recruit in areas like Ethiopia and Egypt.

Did Zacarias Moussaoui look like the guy on the cover?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

Finally, let me state again. Islam =/= terror. So why is that stereotypical image displayed?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:34 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

DivegentDana; the link between middle eastern men who practice Islam and are terrorists is not of my creation. It is a documented fact. Nowhere in any of my comments have I implied that all Muslim or middle easterners are terrorists. By contrast Aaminah and Latoya seem to subscribe to the notion that white men in suits are the most deadly terrorists. Doesn’t that strike you as stereotyping? Do you really believe that all suit wearing white men are terrorists? Have there been terrorists in suits? Yes. Are all white men in suits terrorists? No.

A Nordic terrorist DivergentDana? Not impossible of course but thus far Nords have been underrepresented in terrorism. It’s not because they are inherently better people than others but because their country and it’s way of life isn’t as fertile a breeding ground for terrorists? Just wondering. And even if tomorrow a Nordic terrorist issued a communique from somewhere does it let all the other ones off the hook?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:35 pm ¶
CuntLovin wrote:

@TonyFig- I also look at this in terms of stereotyping…Has the west experienced terrorism at the hands of individuals identifying as Muslim and using Islam as the discourse behind their terrorism? Yes, I don’t think many people will disagree with that. At the root of many stereotypes there is a degree of truth of involved .However that in no way makes a stereotype useful or valid in and of that fact. And this article is evidence loud and clear as to how individuals in the west are taking up and utilizing stereotypes around certain images and identities. Thats the danger in stereotypes, they are the building blocks of schemas, but they are also the building blocks of racism. And the fact is that our culture (and many others) are simply not interested in asking its citizens to think critically about how we apply stereotypes. And I think this cover captures that perfectly.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:35 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:

“However we are dealing with terrorists who seem to primarily emanate from either the Middle East or Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Tony, this is exactly what I mean. Yes, you ARE saying that most terrorists come from that group. It’s just not factual. What is this “we are dealing” junk? The whole world has been dealing with terrorists that are not Middle Eastern, Afghan or Pakistani. By saying “we are dealing”, you are effectively saying that these are the only kind of terrorists that count as terrorists.

How is it racist for me to point out the overwhelming reality that white people inflict more harm on all of us than a small group of ignornant people from the Middle East do? I never said that what they do is right, I said it’s not as huge as you make it out to be.

And the fact that you choose to tie it to Islam shows your bias. It has nothing to do with Islam. I’ve listened to some of those terrorists; they are not quoting Qur’an at all. They are making things up from their own heads. Not even misquoting or misunderstanding, but actually manufactured. It’s got nothing at all to do with Islam. And Muslims don’t owe you any kind of explanation for those people any more than I expect you to explain George W. Bush to me.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:40 pm ¶
CuntLovin wrote:

For myself the question is what is the value of this cover? Does this cover help USA and other forces stop terrorism? No. Does help adult and children in Western cultures understand the true nature of terrorism? No. Even is you accept unproblematically the nature of terrorism to be connected to the middle east (which LaToya and Divergent Diva have provided you with evidence to the contrary), really what does this image teach you about terrorism?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:43 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

I’m happy to read everyone’s replies even if no one agrees with me. Good, committed debate. Ok here I go again: Cruel Secretary, I’m not familiar with the book you cite so I can’t speak on it. Economic terrorism exists but I was talking about terrorism in the commonly understood sense.

DivergentDana: no one “deserves” racism. We all live under it’s shadow, we’ve all felt it’s sting and we’ve all countenanced it’s ignorance.

Latoya: I didn’t say you were excusing terrorism. Forgive me if I implied that. But for you to say that whites in suits are the world’s preeminent terrorists, at least to my ears, sounds like a type of moral equivalency between the two. I know that people in suits in positions of power can harm whole nations. However, history shows us that this is a hardly the sole domain of Whites. Power brings out the worst in too many people.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:44 pm ¶
Feminist Punk! wrote:

@ Tony:

Let’s make a new magazine cover, with “IS THIS AMERICAN?” with a photo of Paris Hilton making out with various guys, wearing an upskirt dress, where we can all see warts sticking out from her vag.

Because yeah, as the whole world knows, all Americans are stupid, selfish, greedy, pathetic, ignorant, and carry STDs around as well. In other word, EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN IS JUST LIKE PARIS HILTON!

(despite the fact that there are about 300 million Americans all represented by one celebrity)

My bad. Is that stereotypical?

Uhh maybe that was a stupid example, but at the moment, I can’t really think of any other good examples to make.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:46 pm ¶
Tariq Nelson wrote:

They are definitely playing on the “Islamic Rage Boy” stereotype.

However, to dovetail on what Latoya is saying above (at 2:34PM), I want to emphasize that a Muslim that looks like the person on the cover is not necessarily a violent and irrational medievalist. In fact in the vast majority of cases they are not. Sadly because the maniacs making the tapes look like that, it makes all bearded Muslim men be thought of as blood thirsty madmen

Most of the 19 hijackers were clean shaven and they all wore Western style clothing. Buying into stereotypes only makes us less safe.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶
latinamericanprinces wrote:

He seems to have a black eye and while, based on the title of this post I initially thought, “yes it is a stereotypical angry muslim” and in line with the racist, angry black man or other such images. But after looking back a few times and looking carefully, I can only think about the men locked up in Guantanamo. Abused and ripped from the world. Some may be criminals but without a fair trial we don’t know. They should not be locked up like animals. The man in this cover, while he seems angry also has profound sadness in his eyes.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:

“the link between middle eastern men who practice Islam and are terrorists is not of my creation”

It’s not true: the reality of those men’s lives showed clearly that they weren’t even trying to practice Islam. Not only is the killing absolutely against Islam, but the drinking, hanging out in strip clubs etc. is absolutely not a Muslim’s behavior. They weren’t “practicing” Muslims at all.

“Do you really believe that all suit wearing white men are terrorists? Have there been terrorists in suits? Yes. Are all white men in suits terrorists? No.”

I didn’t say all white men in suits are terrorists. I said more white men in suits are terrorists than Middle Eastern men in kufi caps are. And the damage they do with their terrorism is infinitely greater in proportion as well.

The difference is that you will never see a magazine cover with any random white man in a suit on it asking if he is the face of Christianity, or secularism, much less with the implication that he is the face of terrorism. Why? Because of the stereotype already discussed. The stereotyped brown man is fair game. Notice, they didn’t choose a blonde-haired blue eyed young man in a suit, even though that could be a Muslim too. They didn’t choose a Malaysian man in his colorful longee and white shirt, even though that’s a Muslim majority nation. They went with the stereotype.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
CuntLovin wrote:

@ TonyFig
“Economic terrorism exists but I was talking about terrorism in the commonly understood sense.”
I guess that get for me to root of what the problem is. You want to talk about terrorism in the commonly understood sense. Thats the problem is that our conceptulizations of terrorism are shaped by language and media like this, to provide a limited understanding of what constitutes terrorism. The commonly understood definition is the definition perpetuated by our governments/institutions so that we are not looking at Economic Terrorism, so that we can sleep at night because ‘yes we may be guilt of Economic Terrorism, but thats not real terrorism.’ Of course its not commonly understood to us as terrorism because we are not on the receivinging end of that terror, and in a global world Western concepts are mistakenly being put up as universal concepts.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:51 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Aaminah; It’s not factual that most of the terrorists we’ve faced are predominantly from the regions I mentioned? Then please tell me where they are from. “Dealing with” as in fighting against. You say that the overwhelming reality is that whites inflict more harm on all of us than the terrorists? Please give me some facts to corroborate that. I’ve said already that I know that whites in suits have committed economic terrorism but so have people of all types in those suits. Are you saying then that all whites are racists or incipient terrorists? To say that there is no link between Islam and terrorism makes no sense when terrorists themselves are constantly using it to justify their actions. I’m not asking Muslims to explain themselves to me since as you correctly point out I’m not owed one. However, I’m not responsible for Mr.Bush or his actions either.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:54 pm ¶
Erin wrote:

“What Do Muslims Think? amir taheri
Unprecedented intellectual ferment in the Muslim world is likely to have a happier ending than many Westerners suppose.”

Right. Because surely there’s never been intellectual debate within Muslim communities…::eye roll::

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:54 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:

Tony, white terrorism is ALOT more than just economic terrorism. But what the hey, you choose to limit your definition however works for you.

I see the root of the problem: You are doing the whole “we vs them” thing. There will be nothing intelligent that can come from your argument as long as you think that there is a “we” and “them” and that you quite solidly know which of those camps you are in.

And duh, I specifically said I don’t expect you to explain Bush to me, so save your snark.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:00 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

C-Lovin(sorry but I don’t use the C-word for any reason) I never said economic terrorism didn’t exist. However for the sake of this discussion I’m making a distinction between(I don’t know what else to call it) terrorism and other types of terrorism. I speak with a Western perspective because that is the perspective I inherited.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:01 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

*buzzer* “Do you really believe that all suit wearing white men are terrorists?”

Straw man. You never claimed that all Muslims were terrorists, and Aaminah never claimed that all suit wearing WM were terrorists, either. Both of the above claims are patently untenable. Let’s assume we’re all reasonable people, here. Ya’ll were both claiming that the groups in question bore a string of notably culpable people. You were extolling the virtues of stereotyping before, claiming that it was only reasonable & natural that terrorism was associated with folks like random hottie depicted above. Latoya and Aaminah think it’s reasonable to associate terrorism with folks like your fam, and you balk. It was wrong before, and now you know it & feel it. Fortunately for you and I, blanket assumptions like that haven’t become a part of our daily lives like they have for many totally innocent brown people, many of whom aren’t fundamentalist, Muslim, or Middle Eastern (not that they deserve the hatred and suspicion, it just gives the lie to the “accuracy” of said depiction).

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Tony –

In terms of direct physical terrorism, we could put up pics of people like Timothy McVeigh or the members of Aum Shiri Kyo (Japan), isn’t that correct?

I am surprised at how angry you are getting that “white men in suits” can be stereotyped as terrorists, yet you are defending a cover image that does the same stereotyping to young men who appear to be from the Middle East.

And you STILL haven’t engaged with either of the points I brought up – why doesn’t the photo AI selected look more like Zacarias Moussoui?

Terrorism comes in many forms, and we are not trying to minimize this at all. (Economic terrorism vs. direct, physical terrorism would actually be a good post.) But what we are saying – and you aren’t hearing – is that participating in pertpetuating these kinds of images does not make us safer. It erodes our civil liberties and makes us more vulnerable to attacks from areas we did not expect.

It’s kind of like a global version of a suspicious shopkeeper following the black kids around the store while a group of white kids get to steal with impunity. If you are looking for one type of criminal, you will miss the thief right in front of you.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:10 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Aaminah, the whole notion of “us” vs “them” is self defeating because we are all Human and this is our world to live in. I’m a single father and a american of latino descent. I don’t live in a ivory tower my friend. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist as are the people who’ve bombed abortion clinics or the people who killed James Byrd as are the cops who beat Rodney King. So yes, I know that whites know a thing or two about terror. But not all of them. And not every middle easterner, Muslim or otherwise is a terrorist. But I was originally talking about terrorism by people using Islam as their reason. We’re not going to win with bombs or body counts. We have to change the world somehow, someway so that justice and mercy become guiding principles and equality is a given. But we all know that there are powerful interests in the way of that and they aren’t going away any time soon are they? But we have to be honest with ourselves and each other and when someone does wrong we have to say it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean we hate them.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

DivergentDana; with all due respect to you, did your read my comments carefully or are you reacting to what you think I said? “Associate terror with folks like my family”? You lost me there. Did I say it was reasonalbe to stereotype middle easterners? No.

Latoya: I mentioned Mr. McVeigh in my previous post. You’re quite right about Aum Shiri Kyo being terrorists. Ditto for the KKK, Aryan nations and all the other hate groups. I’m not angry about white men in suits being labeled. I’m disappointed when fellow people of color resort to stereotyping whites. We shouldn’t do that because that are many whites that aren’t racist and have fought the good fight. I don’t know why the picture didn’t look like Mr. Mossoui. Perhaps that’s a question that should be directed at the publisher? You’re quite correct when you point out that our civil liberties are more in danger than before thanks to fear mongering from the right.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶
CuntLovin wrote:

@TonyFig
I would highly recommend Inga Muscio book “Cunt” it makes some questionable suggestions in my opinion regarding birth control/abortion and the female body and the second edition is a vast improvement from the first, but I think its an important book for women and men, about the word Cunt, and its language is more widely accessible that other authors…
I don’t really see how your responding to my statements (not that in any sense you are compelled to). You state “However for the sake of this discussion I’m making a distinction between(I don’t know what else to call it) terrorism and other types of terrorism.” Thats my problem I guess, is that too often the Western perspective that you (and myself) have inherited has limited the discussion on what terrorism is and this cover reinforces that. Aaminah, LaToya and others are providing other understandings of terrorism. Where are their images? Why is this one strand of terrorism so distinct from the others that its the only one worth putting on a Western magazine cover, and its the only one worth intrinsicly associating with terrorism?
You know what I am thinking would be a brilliant cover…”What is Terrorism” with images of white men in suits next to the images commonly put out about terrorism, next to images of South American rebels, next to images of dictators, next to images of the IRA, next to images of insurance and pharmaceticual corporations…then we could get talking about terrorism…but thats just me

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶
CuntLovin wrote:

@ LaToya Peterson
-Precisely. Until we open our concepts of what terrorism is we will never stop perpetuating it, and never stop being victims of it…

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:24 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

I don’t know why the picture didn’t look like Mr. Mossoui. Perhaps that’s a question that should be directed at the publisher?

That was the entire point of this post.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:26 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

C-Lovin, that’s a great idea for a magazine cover! I wish I’d thought of that.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:27 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Latoya, here I thought that the point was the by using a picture of this young man on it’s cover the magazine was saying that all young men with this genotype were the embodiment the “angry muslim/potential terrorist”. And thus perpetuating a stereotype which you’re dead set against. And as we know stereotypes are destructive and unfair no matter who they’re aimed at right?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:30 pm ¶
Ali wrote:

@CuntLovin – Don’t forget to throw the IRS and CIA into that terrorism montage!

This has been one of the liveliest discussions I’ve followed here at Racialicious. Bravo to all, great points all around and lots to think about.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Yep, that’s the point of this site.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶
CuntLovin wrote:

@Ali
Ah, see you just caught my Canadian bias, I totally forgot about the IRS and CIA (and I am sure countless others)…although the Mounties with their red uniforms and big horses might look better in print

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

DivergentDana; “with all due respect to you, did your read my comments carefully or are you reacting to what you think I said? “Associate terror with folks like my family”? You lost me there. ”

I assumed that you were white before your disclosure because people are posting almost simultaneously and constantly coming out from under moderation delays. Oftentimes I’m reacting to your posts that occurred before the one that may have been chronolologically last, because that’s the last one I’m able to see. Only you can see your own post while it still has the italicized moderation thing above it.

“Did I say it was reasonalbe to stereotype middle easterners? No. ”

Suh whu? Dude, you said that the link between ME men and terrorism was obvious and well-documented, and as a result, despite the fact that it may ruffle feathers, it makes sense to put a stereotypically ME-looking man on the cover. Or am I not paraphrasing your statements here accurately?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:41 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

I’m with C-Lovin Latoya; Racialicious is a great and thought provoking site. I read it daily.

Latoya, any chance at seeing an article on the persecution of latinos under the guise of “immigration enforcement”?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:42 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ CuntLovin–”I don’t really see how your responding to my statements (not that in any sense you are compelled to). You state “However for the sake of this discussion I’m making a distinction between(I don’t know what else to call it) terrorism and other types of terrorism.” Thats my problem I guess, is that too often the Western perspective that you (and myself) have inherited has limited the discussion on what terrorism is and this cover reinforces that. Aaminah, LaToya and others are providing other understandings of terrorism. Where are their images? Why is this one strand of terrorism so distinct from the others that its the only one worth putting on a Western magazine cover, and its the only one worth intrinsicly associating with terrorism?

You know what I am thinking would be a brilliant cover…”What is Terrorism” with images of white men in suits next to the images commonly put out about terrorism, next to images of South American rebels, next to images of dictators, next to images of the IRA, next to images of insurance and pharmaceticual corporations…then we could get talking about terrorism…but thats just me.”

Brills, friend, and co-sign.

@TonyFig: I didn’t ask for you to speak on “The Shock Doctrine” at all. I said that it clarified 1) my idea of terrorism and because of my reading it I could 2) co-sign with what Aaminah said about definitions of terrorism. But, considering the discussion, I’d suggest reading “Shock Doctrine”… and “Cunt,” too.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:44 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@ Tony –

Yeah, I meant to put one in the queue actually.

My state (though not where I live, thankfully) just LEGALIZED RACIAL PROFILING OF LATINOS. Legalized that shit. More than two Latinos in a car at one time, they can pull you over.

Ain’t that some shit? I guess they assume Latinos can’t go green and carpool…

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:46 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:

“Aaminah, the whole notion of “us” vs “them” is self defeating because we are all Human and this is our world to live in.”

Yes, yes it is… but you are the one who went there saying “we” have been fighting “them”.

Your more recent comments seem to veer off from the nasty tone of your previous ones. But I never said all white people are evil. However, enough of them are, in significantly greater amounts than the evil Middle Easterners, that it bears mentionning. Stereotyping what a terrorist looks like is just not sensible. I also love C-Lovin’s alternative cover option. It would make for a much more intelligent look at terrorism than the junk that the magazine chose to go with. But then, it probably wouldn’t be quite so exciting either would it? Because people believe this stereotype, and they won’t buy that truth that C-Lovin’ is talking about…

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:52 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:

“My state (though not where I live, thankfully) just LEGALIZED RACIAL PROFILING OF LATINOS. Legalized that shit. More than two Latinos in a car at one time, they can pull you over.”

Happens here ALL THE TIME. The fact that they would actually enact a law to make it acceptable though… that is insane.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:55 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Latoya–”Ain’t that some shit? I guess they assume Latinos can’t go green and carpool…”

::spit take::

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

I need an umbrella, I’m getting rained on! Just kidding, it’s good talk.

Latoya: in my state of RI a store owner demanded that two latinos produce SS cards to “prove” their citizenship. Wow. Turns out the owner belongs to a group of “citizens” trying to enforce “the law”. Yeah, ok.

Aaminah, perhaps I did make it sound as if I was placing people into camps. And I certainly didn’t mean to sound nasty. But my friend look at what you said just now: “…I never said all white people are evil. However enough of them are in greater numbers than middle easterns that it bears mentioning”. Is it me or does that strike anyone else as being a tad , racist? stereotypical? HUMANS are evil Aaminah. Our world’s history is a gory spectacle but it’s also one in which we’ve seen goodness and courage prevail too. I think that terrorists(and in this context I’m referring to physical ones) choose a path of evil and you can see that in the grief and pain they leave in their wake.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 4:04 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

I forgot to mention this as long I kind of shoehorned the latino topic in here: check out Telemundo or Televisa and tell me how many darked skinned latinos you see on there. Check out the latino equivalents of “People” and the like. You’d think there were no dark skinned latinos anywhere on earth. It’s a whitewash and a silent injustice that’s gone on for far too long.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 4:09 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:

am i the only one that thought he was very, very attractive?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 4:22 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

Great, great debate!
The point about xenophobia is GREAT ONE.
I don’t have anything else to add, other than to see if we can collectively find this guy’s phone number. (wink) He’d be cuter without the beard, though, in my opinion.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 4:43 pm ¶
Brooke AKA Ummbadier wrote:

Anon 68, No Me and Aminah do too–and that is all I can add here…

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 5:19 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Anonymous–I think Aisha and DivergentDana said so earlier in the thread. Then Fatemah rolled in with her Fine Vote. And I’ll definitely co-sign with it!

See, that’s what I dig about Racialicious: we’ll read, rain on, and give the Chair Treatment in a heartbeat (respectfully and reasonably and even with a reading list, of course!), then turn around and talk about how steamy someone is or how fun a childhood show was. Damn, I love us!:-D

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 6:00 pm ¶
JJ13 wrote:

Looking at the cover, I’m now curious about the other article entitled, “A Few More Good Men”… How do the “good guys” look?

I may be splitting hairs, but the use of the word “this” also troubles me. The use of the word “this” without a noun is a reference error. “Is this ___ Islam?” would be correct. What is the “this” that is being discussed? The word, absent any reference, almost nullifies this handsome fella’s humanity.

(I hope I make sense…first time poster!)

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:06 pm ¶
Torontonian wrote:

@TonyFig:

I’m just here to ask you to clarify what seems like a contradiction to me.

First you say that we should not try to “pretend that the ethnicity of terrorists is irrelevant”. Afterwards, you say that Aaminah is racist for mentioning that enough white people are evil, in significantly greater amounts; you also respond with, “HUMANS are evil Aaminah.”

Are you saying that the ethnicity of the terrorists is relevant when it comes to Middle Easterners, but the ethnicity of the terrorists is irrelevant when it comes to white people?

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:06 pm ¶
Torontonian wrote:

I concur that Racialicious is just too awesome because it’s a special space where we can talk about racism and bring up the attractiveness of the person of colour who happens to be the subject of the racial discussion.

You know that if this was a typical white-majority site, most people wouldn’t even consider the “Muslim-looking” guy in terms of “somebody I might want to get to know”.

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:16 pm ¶
fash wrote:

Excellent conversation going on here.

@ Latoya–what???! What state is that? I mean, I know there are a lot of states that are doing it anyway (ahemahem Arizona), but hadn’t heard that a law explicitly stating it had been passed. Tell me where so I can get my outrage on.

@Tony–I think that the point that Aaminah is trying to make, and that seems to be going over your head, is that yes, terrorism is perpetrated by many people who identify (whether justifiably or not) as Muslim or who are of Arab descent, but that the terrorism perpetrated by rich white men in business suits tends to be done more often and have more devastating consequences, and yet you would never see a magazine cover with that sort of person and the question “is this the face of white America?” “is this the face of Christianity?” or “is this the face of terrorism?” No, despite the abundance of home bred terrorism right here in our own country, young Arab men like the guy on this magazine are the images of terrorism and it is for some reason acceptable not only to imply a link between this young man and terrorism but between terrorism and Islam…which is why it needs to be called out.

Also, I totally agree with your assessment of Spanish language media. I tend to watch a lot of Spanish TV because my husband doesn’t speak much English, and I remember my first time flipping through the novelas and asking him at each one “what country was this made in?” and he would respond “I’m just going to pretend it’s Spain” because all you would see would be blonde hair or at least white skin, with perhaps a token dark skinned person (but not too dark! can’t do that). In fact, my assessment may not be complete since I don’t have cable (although i think the only major station I’m missing out on there is Galavision), but it seem to me that most of the time that you see dark skinned Latinos on Spanish TV, they are in comedic roles, which is something that was also very typical of media portrayals of POC in the US/English language TV for a long time. You’d never catch an actual Azteca on Azteca America.

[/end rant]

Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:26 pm ¶
RainaWeather wrote:

As an artist I like the cover because I think it is a challenge to Americans to reconsider the ideas they have about Muslims. As a person, whO the fuck knows? I can’t say if it’s racist by simply looking at it and not knowing what the magazine will have written on the topic.

Posted 01 May 2008 at 12:04 am ¶
Korolev wrote:

It’s obvious the designer wanted to evoke “fear” from the reader (who are assumed to be white, because lets face it, the audience of “The American Interest” magazine are almost certainly going to be white, conservative republicans). So yes, it plays on racial fears, and so not only is it racist, but assumes that it’s audience is racist. So it’s a racist image. Whether or not the article is racist, I wouldn’t know, since I haven’t read it, but title “Does the Middle East Matter” seems to be very condescending and rude. I mean, you wouldn’t see a article titled “Does the US matter” because everyone automatically assumes that the US matters.

Does the middle east matter? Of course it does – people live there, and anywhere people live, matters a great deal (especially to the people living there). By saying “does the middle east matter”, the authors are basically saying – “hey, there over there and they aren’t important” – which is very dehumanizing.

I wouldn’t read a magazine like “The American Interest” anyway. What about the “World Interest”? I think that’s more important.

Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:26 am ¶
Korolev wrote:

And just to reply to some points I saw in this thread – yeah, humans are evil. The capacity of evil (and good) transcends race.

Every single race has committed immense evil. Every single country has its skeletons in their closets. And every race has committed genocide. Caucasians? Just look at the Holocaust and Nazi Germany, as well as the attempted genocide in my home nation of Australia, against the indigenous population. Asians? Just look at WW2, the treatment of Tibet, and the Japanese in China. Africans? Just look at Rwanda. Arabs? Look at the massacre of the Armenians in Turkey during the early 1900s.

Genocide, terrorism, evil, etc – every race commits this and will continue to commit it until science creates a brain chip that makes everyone behave perfectly.

Especially terrorism – There are many, many, many white terrorists. The Irish Republican Army come to mind, and so do the Chechen rebels and even the Russian Secret Police (if you see some of their tactics, they could be judged as terrorists). Terrorism has also been found among Asian countries – Just look at Aum Shinrikyo. Terrorism is a tactic – not a race.

However, the ability for good is also shared among all races.

Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:40 am ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Torontonian: I think the ethnicity of the terrorist is important because in order to understand what drives people into committing these acts we have to know where they’re from and what kind of conditions exist to make their home/country/culture breeding ground for terrorists. We can’t pretend that ethnic and cultural influenes don’t exist. Speaking of white terrorists: when Timothy McVeigh was revealed to be the Oklahoma City bomber a great deal of coverage was devoted to his involvment to white nationalist groups. Mr. McVeigh’s whiteness was definitely an issue because there is a nexus where these so called “patriot” groups live alongside white supremacist groups. This is a fact but it’s not an indictment of whites as a whole.

Every ethnic group and gender has spawned it’s demons and it’s heroes. There were Germans who helped Jews in WW2, there were Japanese that opposed Japan’s occupation of China and there were whites who helped the underground railroad during slavery times. And there are good men and women all over the Muslim world and middle east who are just as appalled at terrorism as anyone would be.

In order to understand the terrorist we must understand who he is and where he comes from if we’re to have any hope of changing things for the unborn generations. My problem with Aaminah’s comments are that(in my opinion) she holds the view that whites are a greater evil than the physical terrorists and it surprises me that on this site those types of remarks go unchallenged by people claiming to be passionate on the topic of racism and it’s noxious effects. If racism is wrong for one group then it’s wrong for everyone. If someone were to substitute another ethnicity for the “white” in Aaminah’s comments there’d be an uproar and rightfully so. Please take a moment and reread what I’ve said relative to this topic. I think people are reacting to what they think I’ve said instead of what I actually did say. Your question was a good one Torontonian.

Posted 01 May 2008 at 4:23 am ¶
Erica wrote:

Ha… he looks uncannily like my Jewish uncle-in-law!

Posted 01 May 2008 at 6:48 am ¶
Torontonian wrote:

@TonyFig:

My problem with Aaminah’s comments are that(in my opinion) she holds the view that whites are a greater evil than the physical terrorists

No, I think she’s saying that white terrorists commit more evil in terms of damage compared to Middle Eastern terrorists.

Why do you think white terrorists are not “physical terrorists”? The effects are not physical because they happen in a different country?

Posted 01 May 2008 at 7:58 am ¶
kd wrote:

@tonyFig
You’re right Torontonian, and to follow up: isn’t “economic” terrorism the same or worse than “physical” terrorism. Doesn’t economic terrorism destroy peoples lives, environments, livelihoods, etc. and actually create the atmosphere for “physical” terrorism itself?

Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:32 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

Tony, didn’t you just finish making the same argument against Middle Easterners that you’re now decrying when Aaminah turns it on whites?

“Islam encompasses many racial groups worldwide but it seems to be that it’s mainly men from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan ,Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia that are commiting terrorist acts against the west and it’s allies”

Aren’t you saying here that Middle Easterners are more responsible for terrorism than other groups, currently? Why is it not wrong when you do it, but wrong when Aaminah has a different opinion on who’s most culpable? Me, I don’t think pointing fingers at groups full of millions of people who didn’t do a damned thing is the answer, but you evidently care what ethnicity they are, so why can’t Aaminah?

Posted 01 May 2008 at 11:36 am ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Torontonian, DivergentDana and kd:

My comments have been about the physical terrorists who have been Islam as their stated philosophical foundation and worldview. It was Aaminah who raised the issue of white terrorism. If you go back and reread some of my earlier comments you’ll see that I said that power tends to bring out the worst in all manner of people wearing suits , whether it’s in N.Korea, Zimbabwe, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or Karl Rove. People in suits committing either economic terrorism or ordering physical terror against someone else are committing evil acts. But my argument is that it’s not an exclusively white concept. And for Aaminah to say as she did that while not all whites are evil enough of them are to justify her feelings strikes me as a contradiction of the spirit of this site.
This whole discussion was triggered by the magazine cover depicting the young muslim. So that’s why my comments were concerning middle eastern terrorists. Had he been white or oriental then I would’ve directed my comments in that direction.

Now, I’d like to pose a question to the above named posters: is it your argument that the existence of white terrorists provides some type of mitigating factor for the acts of non white terrorists? If someone took Aaminah’s statement about whites and substituted “woman”, “gay” “jew”, “black” “latino” and so on for white it would cause an uproar and rightfully so. So why is it okay for her to say that about whites and go unchallenged?

Incidentally, I should point out again that I’m latino but I believe that civil rights are for everyone. When we start using the tactics of racists and supremacists we’re in trouble.

Posted 01 May 2008 at 4:19 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

Torontonian: I forgot to answer your question. Forgive me, long day. You said:

No, I think she’s saying that white terrorists commit more evil in terms of damage compared to Middle Eastern terrorists.

How do we quantify evil ? Are you saying that the carnage left in the wake of a physical terrorist act is less evil than white terrorists? And please someone clarify the term white terrorist. I think I’d like to hear from Aaminah on that topic since she introduced it. Are you referring to someone who has political and economic power? By what standard do you say that one evil is lesser or greater than another?

Posted 01 May 2008 at 4:29 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

Now, I’d like to pose a question to the above named posters: is it your argument that the existence of white terrorists provides some type of mitigating factor for the acts of non white terrorists?

No.

“So why is it okay for her to say that about whites and go unchallenged?”

Aren’t you challenging her right now? I don’t define “terrorist” in the same way that Aaminah does, so I wouldn’t even know where to begin addressing her statement, since I think we’re coming from completely different reference points. For me to effectively argue with her, I would need her to clarify her position.

Posted 01 May 2008 at 5:53 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:

DivergentDana: you make a good point. Perhaps we should agree to agree that terrorism, whether it be economic or physical and no matter who wields it as a weapon, is a path of evil which ends in death, grief and despair. After re-reading one of my previous posts I’m not really interested getting into a discussion over which is the “greater” or “lesser” evil.

Let’s instead ask ourselves what can we do to change it? What can be done to change a society, a culture, an environment where someone thinks they’re justified in committing an act of terrorism. Let’s ask ourselves where does the supremacist notions underlying terrorism come from. What needs to change in this world?

Anyone?

Posted 01 May 2008 at 7:23 pm ¶
Torontonian wrote:

@TonyFig:

People in suits committing either economic terrorism or ordering physical terror against someone else are committing evil acts. But my argument is that it’s not an exclusively white concept.

Nobody said it was. Latoya even mentioned that one of them was black.

And for Aaminah to say as she did that while not all whites are evil enough of them are to justify her feelings strikes me as a contradiction of the spirit of this site.

She said that enough of them are that it bears mentioning. This is in response to you saying that “It may make some of us uncomfortable that a specific behavior (like terrorism) is being linked to a specific group.” By “specific group”, you referred to mainly Muslim “men from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia” (your words). If you want to bring up the relationship between ethnicity and terrorism (which you started), isn’t it more empirical look at the ethnicities of terrorists worldwide and examine what the relationships are? Enough white men in suits are terrorists that it bears mentioning; mentioning white terrorists is relevant to the idea of linking terrorism to specific ethnic groups. But suddenly this is racist because Aaminah says it? or because we’re linking terrorism to whites?

If you are trying to say something like, “Hey, isn’t it funny that certain terrorists — specifically the ones from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia — are mainly from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? There seems to be a link between the terrorists from these countries and the countries that they are from,” then you are not thinking very critically at all about the links between terrorism and ethnicity.

Now, I’d like to pose a question to the above named posters: is it your argument that the existence of white terrorists provides some type of mitigating factor for the acts of non white terrorists?

No. This is your projection. You don’t understand why white terrorists were mentioned in response to what you brought up, so you made up motivations for us.

If someone took Aaminah’s statement about whites and substituted “woman”, “gay” “jew”, “black” “latino” and so on for white it would cause an uproar and rightfully so. So why is it okay for her to say that about whites and go unchallenged?

I think you didn’t understand what she was saying, which is why you think she was making a generalization. She was bringing up a counter example to your generalization of people from the Middle East and South Asia.

How do we quantify evil ? Are you saying that the carnage left in the wake of a physical terrorist act is less evil than white terrorists? [continued in the next post ... ] I’m not really interested getting into a discussion over which is the “greater” or “lesser” evil.

Yet just a moment ago, you said your problem with Aaminah’s comments was that “she holds the view that whites are a greater evil than the physical terrorists”. I give you a link to shock and awe, and suddenly you no longer care about the truth value of which is the greater or lesser evil, although that was, according to you, the crux of the problem you had with Aaminah’s comments. So what you said before was false, or what you are saying now is false?

And please someone clarify the term white terrorist.

A white terrorist is a terrorist who happens to be white. If you want to bring up the relationship between terrorism and ethnic groups, we can bring up the relationship between terrorism and whites.

Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:58 am ¶
Anon wrote:

It’s beyond a doubt ridiculous, but not unheard of, to reduce cultures, ethnicities and religions to a face.

Sometimes the face is produced with the intent to identify–and then you have pictures like this one where the aggression level is practically non-existent and yet we’ve all been conditioned to read the expression as something dark, dreadful, and other.

Faces are useful semiotics for the fear-mongering media and majority in this nation–their anxieties catch like wildfire and inflame everyone else’s.

What’s interesting about this picture is that, unlike the youths kidnapped in Uganda in recent years and forced to fight for Congolese insurgents, this man is not seen as imperiled, but a threat to national security.

Is it that America is uniting its various ethnicities through a terror campaign of its own?

Nah. Couldn’t be.

(Sorry. This is a late post, and probably adds nothing to the evaluation or debate.)

Posted 02 May 2008 at 5:21 am ¶
Nadirah Adeye wrote:

Please excuse me if this response is somewhat irreverent or seems to take matters lightly- I do not.

My first response to the cover was, “Damn- he looks good.” Which is often my first response to the so-called scary images of middle eastern men. (cause frankly, I like looking at beautiful men)

I’m also aware of my own resistance to him as a man of Middle Eastern descent because, in my experience, men (and specifically Muslim men in this instance) are very casually dismissive of and disrespectful towards women who are not “good” women- women who are not obeying certain standards of behavior. As an outspoken, direct, blunt, disobedient African American woman, I’ve experienced being dismissed by Middle Eastern men on more than one occasion.

All that said- Yes this cover with this gorgeous man who may or may not “see” or respect me is racist. Or it’s a deliberate attempt to engage all of the most negative images and stereotypes of Middle Eastern Muslim men in one picture. Where I am supposed to go after that engagement is what confuses me.

Posted 02 May 2008 at 2:42 pm ¶
n_N wrote:

Islam is not an ethnicity and should not be treated as such. Being an “islamophobe” (how trite) d0es not automatically make one racist. The terms “Arabic” and “Muslim” are so often made interchangeable that it is considered racist to criticize Islam, but the truth of the matter is that there is (A), no true “Arabic” people (so those assumptions about race are uninformed and ignorant) and (B), being a Muslim does not mean you have to be of a certain “race”.

With that in mind, I would definitely say that this is racist. Why is it assumed that this man must be Muslim? Would it have made a difference to readers if he were wearing western clothing, or had shaved his beard, or was shot at a different angle? For joy’s sake, I imagine this man looking up, smiling and squinting his eyes. Had that been the cover photo, I’m sure it would have taken the article in a much different direction.

Posted 03 May 2008 at 4:13 am ¶
n_N wrote:

Also, he is attractive, especially when I imagine him smiling.

Posted 03 May 2008 at 4:14 am ¶
BlurpleBerry wrote:

Hold up. It’s not racially relevant to discuss Muslim issues here, but it’s totally acceptable to dedicate a whole thread to Jewish Americans?
Uh, ok?

Even though I think it is mostly insight and great information that comes out of this blog’s postings on Islam, I must point out that while there are dozens upon dozens of Racilicious articles regarding Islam and the portrayal of Muslims, there has only been ONE post about Jews. Discrimination against Jews is very similar to discrimination against Muslims, as both are most definitely “racialized” and presented as an “ethnic other” in the media.

I am a Jewish-American and could go on and on about Judaism and Islam being ethnoreligious, but for fear of veering off topic, I’ll only mention the prospect briefly.

If one oppressed religious group is going to receive attention, shouldn’t both/all of them?

Posted 04 May 2008 at 8:00 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

BlurpleBerry –

Oh yeah, I hear that. I know there is a disparity, it just takes time to get regular columnists to contribute quality articles on a regular basis.

I, too, was surprised at some of the vitriol that came out on the initial run of the Jewish thread so we will discuss more Jewish issues in the future. It’s just going to take me a while since I am almost wholly unfamiliar with Judiasm and need to educate myself a bit more first before we dive in.

Funnily enough though, there is a post about Jews scheduled for Monday.

Also, if you have any ideas/resources, feel free to contact me at latoya@racialicious.com

Posted 04 May 2008 at 8:46 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:

Is this the face of a man whose bedroom eyes some of us are dying to see?
Yes. Yes it is.

Posted 13 May 2008 at 6:09 am ¶
Padraigin wrote:

That guy looks like Jafar from Alladin.

Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 6:11 pm ¶