Fort Hood and the Media
by Latoya Peterson
It was a peaceful Sunday morning. Sunlight streamed in through the windows, the sheets were clean, the pillows were fluffy. I settled into bed and got nice and comfortable – that is, until my boyfriend decided it was time for the Sunday talk show circuit.
“[Hasan] was a radical jihadist!” blared out of the television. There went my quiet morning. Atlasien has a piece in the works about Fort Hood and some of the other major headlines. Until then, here’s a relatively sane round-up of what’s been going on:
Fort Hood and the invisibility of Arab Americans – Washington Post Short Stack Blog
Arab-American history is long and deep in the United States but Arab and Muslim Americans are not part of how we imagine who we are as Americans or how we perceive what makes up the American experience. Now, in the national discussion among commentators, politicians, and others in the aftermath of Ft. Hood, we can see the dangerous effects of Arab-American invisibility; in that vacuum, acts of a single individual, Major Hasan, cast a shadow of collective guilt on millions of Americans.
Timothy McVeigh warped the interpretations of the Constitution but we easily dismissed that without pondering whether there was inherent evil in the Constitution. The same cannot be said of how we view the relationship between the Koran and violent behavior – we unfairly blame individuals’ horrific acts on the teachings of the Koran. We ignore needed discussion of evident mental health issues, which were the focus when other service people have cracked and murdered their colleagues, and instead engage in lazy analysis about ethnic predilection of violence.
How can we move the conversation forward? If we knew more about the soldiers mentioned above and other Arab Americans, if their stories were familiar to us, if the origins of their names recognizable to us, how would the conversation be different?
Fort Hood Rampage: Don’t Let Tragedy Bring More Tragedy – Racewire
As we respond, we must categorically resist voices of suspicion and reaction so that this tragedy does not bring more tragedy. That the shooter’s name sounds Muslim will offer those who thrive on fear an opportunity to pounce. We reject the impulse to assume that the shooter’s name means anything about his motivations, that being Muslim or being perceived as such makes someone dangerous. A hideous crime was committed. Let’s make the attacks end there.
What Does Fort Hood Mean for American Muslims? - Wiretap
Writing shortly after the incident, the perceptive young American Muslim writer Wajahat Ali understandably cautioned against leaping to conclusions, writing:
“A cousin of Hasan, interviewed by reporters, has suggested an alternative motivation, not necessarily influenced by religious conviction. ‘He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy,’ said Nader Hasan. ‘He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there [in Iraq and Afghanistan].’”But in the face of additional evidence that emerged today, it is not reasonable or logical to pretend that some great wall separated Hasan’s own sense of Muslim identity from his motive. Witnesses report that he shouted “God is great!” ahead of his rampage; family indicated that he was deeply upset over discrimination he said was visited upon him for being Muslim; and he openly expressed his hostility to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by describing it as a “war against Islam.”
Of course, we do not yet know precisely what combination of factors led to the attack, and with more than 20,000 Muslims actively serving in the U.S. military, it would be absurd to mistake one man’s warped and skewed understanding of Islam and graft it onto every other Muslim.
But the scale and nature of this incident raises a number of uncomfortable questions about what usually goes unseen and remains unsaid outside of military circles.
A psychiatrist, Hasan heard the stories of soldiers returning from combat: did these accounts of killing, abuse and other horrors fuel his anger at American policy as the date of his own deployment to Afghanistan neared? What kind of harassment was Hasan subjected to on base for his Muslim identity? How widespread is enmity toward Muslims and Islam among the very soldiers who Gen. McChrystal is sending to fight alongside Muslims against Islamist extremists?
There are also other, equally pressing questions that directly affect young Muslims, such as me, who call this country our own. People will invariably ask why and whether Muslims are in the military — or perhaps even in the country at all — and what sort of measures will be taken to “monitor” this minority.
Tunku Varadarajan: Off the Deep End - Sepia Mutiny
By now, many readers may have seen Tunku Varadarajan’s controversial column for Forbes from last week, “Going Muslim.” In it, Varadarajan coins a new term to describe Major Nidal Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood two weeks ago. “Going Muslim” is Varadarajan’s variation of “going postal,” a phrase coined a few years ago, after a string of (non-Muslim) U.S. postal workers went on killing sprees. Here is how Varadarajan defines the term:
This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American—a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood—discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans.
The most irksome part of Varadarajan’s column for me was the following paragraph:
The difference between “going postal,” in the conventional sense, and “going Muslim,” in the sense that I suggest, is that there would not necessarily be a psychological “snapping” point in the case of the imminently violent Muslim; instead, there could be a calculated discarding of camouflage—the camouflage of integration—in an act of revelatory catharsis. In spite of suggestions by some who know him that he had a history of “harassment” as a Muslim in the army, Maj. Hasan did not “snap” in the “postal” manner. He gave away his possessions on the morning of his day of murder. He even gave away—to a neighbor—a packet of frozen broccoli that he did not wish to see go to waste, even as he mapped in his mind the laying waste of lives at Fort Hood. His was a meticulous, even punctilious “departure.”
In fact, reports from Hasan’s colleagues strongly suggest a profile of a person who was borderline psychotic for several years, but who finally snapped around 2007. Yes, he gave away his broccoli on the day he went on a shooting spree. But that is in fact entirely in keeping with how psychotics behave.
What Varadarajan doesn’t realize is that the kind of paranoid argument he is making about immigrants in “camouflage” could very easily be used against any other immigrant group, including Hindus, as a pretext for mistrust or active discrimination.
Varadarajan also make a claim about “integration” into American society that is simply not supported by any facts. The diverse groups of immigrants who are Muslim have done just fine in terms of their economic performance, civil participation, etc. By coining this pernicious phrase, and by promoting an argument based self-evidently on bigotry, Varadarajan has shown us why we no longer need to take anything he says seriously.
(Image Credit: Mattox)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
G.K. wrote:
Here’s an article from this Sunday’s Detroit Free Press on Muslims from the Detroit area in the Army and how they are dealing with the fallout from Fort Hood. There’s also an interviews with a group of Muslim veteran doing outreach to educate folks about Islam and bust the stereotypes:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091115/NEWS05/911150529/&template=artiphone
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 12:26 pm ¶
G.K. wrote:
Oops–the interview wasn’t in this article, but it’s still worth a read.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
Regarding the hateful, ignorant article “Going Muslim,” it makes me so angry that a fucking INDIAN wrote this. How dare he do that?
Hasan was a psychopath who saw no problem in killing random humans. Nothing to do with Islam or being Muslim, period.
When a white man does it, everyone tries to make excuses for it. But when a Black or Muslim man does it, the media blames his race and religion for it.
He is a scumbag and may he rot in Hell.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 12:29 pm ¶
Lola wrote:
once again the “liberal media” is not as liberal as the right wing proclaims it to be, when it comes to race and religion the media is at the forefront of the bigot prorogation machine
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 1:03 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
hi G.K, thanks for that article. Here’s a L.A Times article about Muslims in the U.S military
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-muslims12-2009nov12,0,3078055,full.story
these guys are my heroes!
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 1:11 pm ¶
Beth wrote:
And of course anyone not blaming it on his religion is blaming amorphous “mental health problems”. People with mental health problems are more likely to be targets of violence than perpetrators, etc, but it’s much easier to try to portray him as exceptional in some way (whether it’s “crazy” or “religious”), rather than tying this into a violent culture of helplessness/privilege, where men are told that they are all-powerful while simultaneously being deprived of actual agency. Oh, and given easy access to guns.
He is not exceptional; he simply gained more success and a broader impact than most violent criminals.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 1:31 pm ¶
Irene M. wrote:
I can’t believe what I am about to say on a serious analytical blog but, The Onion has a nice article on Fort Hood and Muslims. Seriously! It’s titled “American Muslims to Fort Hood Shooter, ‘Thanks A Lot, Asshole’” and is both funny and progressive. Sadly, it’s one of the best treatments of this issue that I have seen in the media.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
And of course anyone not blaming it on his religion is blaming amorphous “mental health problems”.
Uhhmmm, what’s wrong with that? a lot of serial killers, psychopaths, and mass murderers HAVE had mental problems.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶
Eva wrote:
The first thing I heard about the shooting at Ft. Hood was that the shooter was a psychiatrist. The first thing I thought was he was probably suffering from some kind of PTSD. Who knows what things he was hearing from the returning soldiers. I thought that before I heard what his name was, and I still think that.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
I’m with DIMA on that one. Given that most people aren’t clinical mental health professionals 9so they won’t be using ‘proper’ terms, whatever those might be) that seems a nice way to put it.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
And on a more pertinent note, Michelle Malkin is at it again:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/17/hasan-signed-his-e-mails-with-praise-be-to-allah/
I really wish one day Malkin would get picked up as a potential terrorist by Homeland Security, since her people are from a part of the Philippines where a lot of Muslims live. It’s only logical, in her own estimation. You never know if her family really converted to Christianity all those years ago. Is she really so unaware that one day she might be on the receiving end?
Her lack of elementary humanity is truly amazing.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
Michelle Malkin is such a pathetic, self-hating woman who wishes she can be white.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 3:12 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Because most people with “mental health problems” are not serial killers, psycopaths, mass murderers or violent. It takes a broad category of disorders and reduces them to a glib catch-phrase to describe aberrant behavior.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 3:30 pm ¶
dogsofwar wrote:
Mr. Varadarajan, in the linked article, has his head so far up his Stern Business School and Hoover Institute ass that it would take an army of posters on this blog and 100 like it to drag him out of it.
I wish ill on noone out there, but has he been sequestered in the conservative ivory tower so long that he’s forgotten how easily Asian Americans are bashed? (not to leave out actual Muslims, of course)
The first reported revenge killing after 9/11 in this country was Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh, shot five times at an Arizona gas station. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that Mr. Varadarajan could theoretically be targeted in the paranoiac atmosphere he himself is contributing to. Does he think some birther/teabag fanatic will stop to ask him whether his beard is Muslim, Sikh, or other, and whether he shills for the Hoover Institute? “But, no wait, put down the gun, I’m on your side….!”
The day we can look for nuance or common sense from Forbes. GAH.
He writes: “How to address the threat posed by the fact that, of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our midst, there are a few (perhaps many more than a few) who are so radicalized that they would kill their fellow Americans?”
Don’t you love that technique of using “perhaps many more than a few” in parens. It’s like, “I won’t accuse ALL Muslims, just a few…But wait, many more than a few.”
How about replacing the word “Muslims” in that sentence with “Wingnut Christian Extremists” or “anti-abortion crusaders?”
Has anyone forgotten Jim D. Adkisson, who went and shot up that Unitarian Church to express his hatred of “the liberal movement?” Or that charming McVeigh fellow from a whiles back?
Even worse, the guy goes and tries to craft a convenient catchphrase like “Going Muslim,” that all but guaranteed he’d be linked to a gazillion times across the Internets.
One of the more dangerous things about Varadarajan is that people will take his argument and say “See, even other POC think political correctness led to this Muslim massacre on a US military base. Gee, we better stop being such namby-pamby liberals and strap all these Muslims with tracking devices.”
Obviously, this point is nothing new, but my blood was boiling to the point that I had to type this. Thanks, Racialicious.
Because one knows that too much of holding it inside could make someone ’snap’ and “Go Christian”, or something!
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 3:36 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
The first backlash casualty (down, but thankfully not killed) was a GREEK ORTHODOX PRIEST.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 3:54 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
Because most people with “mental health problems” are not serial killers, psycopaths, mass murderers or violent. It takes a broad category of disorders and reduces them to a glib catch-phrase to describe aberrant behavior.
yes, you are right. But let’s not try to compare people with mental disorders on the same level as a racial/ethnic/religious minority group that fears a media backlash after an incident. It’s NOT the same fucking thing. Ok?
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 4:23 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@DIMA –
But let’s not try to compare people with mental disorders on the same level as a racial/ethnic/religious minority group that fears a media backlash after an incident. It’s NOT the same fucking thing. Ok?
Is it really so different?
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 4:33 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@DIMA: actually, it often IS the same thing because there are huge overlaps.
Refugees and immigrants from war-town countries with PTSD. Minority communities who are underserved for mental health issues such as depression. Minority children (especially boys) whose mental health issues are diagnosed as more potentially violent, because of racism, which puts them at higher risk for institutionalization.
I see this issue from both sides, because I had a very scary incident where a person in a schizophrenic episode tried to rape me. But I also have mental illness in my family, including people who have never tried to hurt anyone and would never hurt anyone, and I believe that mental illness stigma ultimately hurts everyone.
And there is a backlash effect. People suffering from mental illness are a lot less likely to talk about it, or to seek help, if they think that they’ll be lumped in with a mass murderer. They can be kicked out of school, fired, and so on, on the theory of “better safe than sorry.”
You can’t just say about someone “they’re crazy” and write them off as a human being. “Crazy” should never be used as a synonym for “evil”.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 4:44 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
When I first heard about this, I had no idea the shooter was Muslim. My first thought was, upon hearing he was a mental health specialist, or psychologist, whatever, was that simply freaked out because he had to go to Iraq, and he had been counseling soldiers with severe issues upon returning from there.
It seriously angers me that people would say that he’s a “radical jihadist” simply because he’s Muslim, and all of the sudden, he was praising suicide bombers, screaming “jihadist phrases” (whatever those are) during the shooting, etc etc. This was brought up on a pro-life message board that I argue on (I’m pro-choice, it makes for interesting conversation) because one of the victims was pregnant. Anyways, you can imagine the kinds of comments the posters made towards this man, and when I asked if they had any proof that he was a “radical jihadist” I received no reply.
Whatever his religion is, it’s irrelevant. He didn’t do it because his religion told him so. He’s mentally disturbed. It just really, really sucks how the media is treating this incident as another outlet to vent their anger on Muslims. I bet you ANYTHING we’re going to hear from some idiot conservative pundit that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in the military. Because, obviously, if you’re Muslim, then you’re automatically a terrorist. It really angers me that people equate those two.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 4:58 pm ¶
Beth wrote:
“Uhhmmm, what’s wrong with that? a lot of serial killers, psychopaths, and mass murderers HAVE had mental problems.”
Possibly. I’d like to see your statistics, unless you are defining “serial killers”, “psychopaths” and “mass murderers” only as those killers motivated by psychosis, in which case it is true by definition. According to a recent study using Swedish mental health data, only 5.2% of violent crimes were committed by people with mental health disorders: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5216836.stm
Most mental health disorders are not at all predictive of violent behavior, and most violent crimes are not committed by people with mental health disorders. Given the intersectionality of mental ablism and racism, I don’t believe that pointing out the similar ways in which his race and his (speculative) mental diagnosis have been used to Other him is out of scope.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 5:46 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
@ Irene: I loved that Onion headline. I literally thought that exact same thing when I heard that he was Muslim.
Haroon Moghul has a really great post at ReligionDispatches about the NYU professor’s “Going Muslim” fuckery: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2033/muslim_students_shocked_by_professor%E2%80%99s_column
The media can trot out whatever it wants about Hasan’s faith: I know that this is a mental health issue and not a religious one. Mental health issues can often manifest themselves in different ways, and blatantly incorrect and odd religious observance is one of them. That doesn’t mean he did this because he was Muslim, just that he latched onto bizarre interpretations of the faith that he followed. There are plenty of Christians with mental health issues that manifest themselves in religious observances.
I just keep going back to The Onion headline. Thanks a lot, asshole. Really.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 6:03 pm ¶
kendra wrote:
The Hasan incident seems too strategic. Now we’ll have a bunch of news stories outlining what is a good Muslim and a bad Muslim, with many anecdotes featuring Muslim members of society who are in fact ideal citizens, trying yet again to prove their allegiance to the fucking US government. Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark. I imagine this event will be used to support war with Iran, as the US government has already closed/taken over some mosques based on the assumption that they are connected to the Iranian government. Hasan’s academic and professional background reveal some very interesting things. Hoover Institution in particular.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 6:14 pm ¶
kendra wrote:
I should also say that the government will probably recuit some snitches from the Muslim communities because of this to. Either that, or people will willfully volunteer information, whether true or not.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 6:19 pm ¶
Scribe wrote:
I’m glad someone brought up the mental health debate. I thought I was the only one who thought a stigma was being perpetuated whenever these mass shootings arise.
The media needs to hold accountability on what they do, because the bias that permeates from them day in and day out has gotten out of control.
We can debate about Hasan’s background and “mental state”, but nothing is ever said about the traumatic effects war has on the innocent lives who are in, and the soldiers who fight, these imperialist wars.
And to think that the media is working in overdrive to point out Hasan’s Muslim background, there are countless Muslim men, women, and children who are dying in this so-called “war on terror”. So who is really the threat?
If people can’t see this for what it is, then I say they’re priorities are truly messed up.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 7:10 pm ¶
kendra wrote:
correction: “recruit some snitches”
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 7:26 pm ¶
Jen wrote:
@Whitney Oh, I’ve already read several pieces suggesting Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to serve. It makes you wonder if they’ve thought about all the other cases of fragging, which I’m going to go out on a limb and assume weren’t by Muslims. I don’t hear much call for non-Muslims to be restricted from service because they might chuck a grenade into a tent or shoot one of their own.
Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 10:48 pm ¶
m. wrote:
@atlasien, #18:
Thank you.
Posted 18 Nov 2009 at 12:11 am ¶
Nissa wrote:
This whole case is so tragic…but that ‘going Muslim’ thing is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read!
Why, when someone does something awful it is because they are Muslim but all those serving the in the US army for decades loyally and proudly don’t do it because they are Muslim? Just because he was a psychiatrist doesn’t mean he was immune to mental distress….from what his family have said he had a lot of issues in being in the army.
The reality of our lives is that we are seen as ticking time bombs (forgive the pun!)….any second we will revert back to being Muslim and there is no integrating us.
Its bleak but we are the ultimate ‘other’ and morons like Malkin, Varadarajan, Al-Awlaki and Hassan himself just make it worse for those of us who want to get on with our lives like everyone else.
Posted 18 Nov 2009 at 6:48 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
The collision of racism and mental illness stigma/ignorance here reminds me of a case in Canada a few years ago involving a schizophrenic first generation Chinese immigrant who beheaded a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus while suffering a delusion. (I’m not going to name him out of respect for privacy). The killing was very gruesome but it was obviously tragic as well for the poor perpetrator, who worked 2 or 3 jobs and hadn’t had access to mental health services. He begged the police to kill him when they arrested him, clearly unable to bear the reality of what happened. Then of course all these hysterical racists had conniption fits about dangerous foreigners who ought to face the death penalty and implied that to sympathize with this guy was tantamount to celebrating the death of the victim.
I think of that poor guy all the time.
Posted 18 Nov 2009 at 7:05 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
@Fatemeh, your point about religion is SO right on. In Quebec there’s a long history of Catholic inspired cults who’ve been linked to abuse and murder, yet this would never lead to the conclusion that Christianity is pathological.
Posted 18 Nov 2009 at 7:08 pm ¶
Nate wrote:
Also, the indignation of the US media about the tragedy does stick in the craw.
No, I’m not trolling, and I’m not advocating or excusing what the guy did (and I apologise for offended posters/readers of this site, because wht i’m going to say is offensive) but the victims were members of the US military. A volunteer military, and from some veiwpoints external to the US (viewpoints gained from bitter experience), a force of, well honestly, oppression and colonialism…
About to deploy a country where awful lot of people are doing their damnest to resist.
If this situation, happened to say, SA military about to deploy to Namibia or Angola, back in the day, would be be saying the prepetrator was mentally ill, or righteous?
Posted 19 Nov 2009 at 7:47 am ¶
dersk wrote:
@jvansteppes: Speak for yourself (anyone else see the BBC debate in which Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens totally owned Anne Widdicombe and a Nigerian bishop on the question of whether the church is a force for good?). Besides, any religion that ritually cannibalizes its own god is a little bit odd, when looked at from a neutral point of view…
Look, at this point in the game, ANYONE who claims to know what the crime was all about is either psychic or full of crap. Yes, the usual suspects jumped to conclusions; on the other hand, it does appear that Hasan was fairly radical in his views and associated with some preachers who advocated violence in the name of Islam.
Posted 19 Nov 2009 at 9:42 am ¶
dersk wrote:
@Kendra: I sincerely hope that the government HAS already recruited snitches in Muslim communities, as well as militias, teabaggers, and the birther groups. Heck, if vegan societies are good enough to be infiltrated as potential ecoterrorists, so should they.
In a very directed way, of course: churches whose preachers (whatever religion) are advocating violence should be monitored.
Posted 19 Nov 2009 at 9:49 am ¶
Debayani Kar wrote:
Here is Vijay Prashad’s response to “Going Muslim”: http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=650
Posted 19 Nov 2009 at 8:05 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
@dersk: I wasn’t implying that any religion is essentially pathological, Christianity included -I don’t mean to offend. It is true that many people commit acts of violence in the name of religion; when ‘Christians’ do it in North America we do not indict Christianity, yet when the same is done by someone who says ‘allahu akbar’ we hear that Islam itself is inherently dangerous.
Posted 19 Nov 2009 at 8:27 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
At this point it appears that the discourse has gone beyond “Islam is inherently violent” to “Muslims are inherently violent.” The discourse has now become such that all Muslims are seen with suspicion and are automatically assumed dangerous and violent unless we prove ourselves to not be violent.
Mind you, this belief was around alive and well pre-9/11 as well. Anyone who grew up in the US and Canada in the 80’s, post Iranian revolution, will remember the demonization of Muslims as violent well before September 11th, 2001.
Posted 19 Nov 2009 at 10:49 pm ¶
J wrote:
I live in Oklahoma City and about 2 weeks ago a local medical doctor, devout Catholic, with a history of psychiactric problems decided that his 9-year-old son “was the devil” and killed him, injuring his wife/son’s mother in the process as she tried to save him. On the 9/11 tapes heard on the news, he clearly says “[boy's name] is the devil, [wife's name] is the devil!” as the police officer tells him “put your f—-ing hands behind your head!” The similarities between this guy’s history and his religious justification for his act and the Fort Hood shooter have stuck with me.
Posted 23 Nov 2009 at 11:59 pm ¶