links for 2008-09-09
-
"John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers."
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Dawud wrote:
Prof. Juan Cole is very insightful when it comes to these issues.
It’s very interesting that thus far the media has said little about her authentic far-right Pentecostal roots, yet Obama has to answer for his Muslim roots regarding a father, who apostated and was a dead-beat dad.
My only criticism, which is miniscule, regarding this article was Cole mentioning that the Saudi’s belief that that G’d gave them oil as if that is radical thought process.
Belief that G’d gave different land masses particular natural resources is far different than a woman who believes that it was a mission from G’d to illegally invade Iraq, which has cost over one million deaths, primarily civilians!
I’m not endorsing Saudi Arabia. I’ve been there for weeks at a time and prefer my hometown of Detroit, despite its depravity.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 10:23 am ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
Lipstick! SNAP!
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶
Eric Grant wrote:
Is there any reason to believe a Muslim fundamentalist woman wouldn’t wear lipstick? I mean, I thought many Muslim women who even cover up their faces in public or mixed situations still get pretty dolled up for when they’re just among other women or with their husbands.
But maybe I’m mistaken.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Palin’s statement was taken out of context. She said that we should pray that we are sending soldiers out on God’s task.
There’s a big difference from saying “God likes this” and “I hope God likes this”.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 3:20 pm ¶
fathima wrote:
i’m glad that article came with its last four paragraph, because as i was reading through it, it struck me that without that necessary disclaimer that argument could otherwise be used to tar all Muslims and Palin in one fell swoop
still, i think there’s something problematic about how quickly Islam is used here to underline the irony of Palin’s false progressiveness. it’d be an irony that i’d appreciate more if the opening paragraphs had focused on highlighting how mutually dependent Republican politics and far right Islamism are, instead of relying on popular (mis)conceptions of Muslim conservatism to counterpoint American ideals of democracy
but all in all, it was a good read
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶
Una wrote:
I like it. I like especially that the author specifically, outright says that he is talking about extremists, not all Muslims. Perhaps we can gather from this that all religious extremists have more in common with each other than with the moderates of their specific religion.
There’s still a bit of the aspect of using specifically Islamic extremists as the ultimate bad guys though, which alwas makes me cringe a little. Although the article strays from strict reasonable debate in comparing Palin to Muslim extremists, the points it raises are valid and important.
I am glad that the author does not refer to Palin’s gender. I am also glad to read an article in which all the major statements are politically relevant and actually refer to the Constitution rather than, say, the presence or absence of lapel pins.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 3:49 pm ¶
oh!press pass wrote:
Good one!
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 3:58 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
@ Eric: it depends. But even more conservative Muslim women do get dolled up for their husbands or female-only parties.
@ fathima: “there’s something problematic about how quickly Islam is used here to underline the irony of Palin’s false progressiveness.” Bingo.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 5:58 pm ¶
kakodaimon wrote:
still, i think there’s something problematic about how quickly Islam is used here to underline the irony of Palin’s false progressiveness.
Yes. “It’s so crazy it could even be Islam!” Ew.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 6:49 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
This is the beauty of white privilege (or maybe “Western blindness”) – how easy it is to pillory another culture while conveniently ignoring our own hypocritical transgressions.
Funny, I just wrote a post of my own about this same phenomenon (although applied to a very different situation):
http://choptensils.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-freeing-tibet.html
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 8:31 pm ¶
mzbitca wrote:
It’s just another example that if your God is the “right God.” you can have whatever ridiculous views you want. Through the word Allah in there though and everyone flips their shit and assumes you’re a radical terrorist. Palin’s religious views will never get the same coverage as Obama because to the American People crazy white christians just aren’t threatening
Posted 10 Sep 2008 at 7:07 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@ kakodaimon
“still, i think there’s something problematic about how quickly Islam is used here to underline the irony of Palin’s false progressiveness.
Yes. “It’s so crazy it could even be Islam!” Ew.
Cosign.
@CVT
“This is the beauty of white privilege (or maybe “Western blindness”) – how easy it is to pillory another culture while conveniently ignoring our own hypocritical transgressions.”
More the second than the first, I think. In my experience, unfortunately, this is a prevailing western attitude–whether a person is of color or not.
Posted 10 Sep 2008 at 9:35 am ¶
fransky wrote:
Great article! Thanks for linking!
~F
Posted 10 Sep 2008 at 11:43 am ¶
Luis wrote:
@Joseph
Western values are at the beck and call of White Privilege. The adherence of POCs to the tenets of White Privilege, especially if it is at their own expense, is one of the beautifully terrible facets of WP. There’s no need to change the name just because it’s being supported by a different color.
Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 1:37 am ¶