Open Letter to Elizabeth Moon
Ms. Moon,
I’ve been torn about writing this. In part because “An open letter to _____” just sounds pretentious to me. And partly because I know there have already been twenty-four gazillion responses to your 9/11 blog post, Citizenship.
I’ve recommended your blog on multiple occasions, for your thoughtfulness and perspective. I disagree with much of what you say in your 9/11 post, but that doesn’t change my appreciation for other things you’ve written.
That said, I strongly disagree with what you wrote about citizenship and the obligations of the Muslim community with regard to the Mosque at Ground Zero (which is, in fact, neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero.)
I do agree with much of what you say about citizenship, and about people’s obligation and responsibility to their nation. I would even expand that obligation to the need to contribute to the betterment of self, of family, of nation, and of the world. (And beyond, for that matter … we are SF/F authors, after all.)
But I’m troubled by your comments on assimilation. You say, “Groups that self-isolate, that determinedly distinguish themselves by location, by language, by dress, will not be accepted as readily as those that plunge into the mainstream.” This conflates identity with isolation, and presumes that isolation, when it occurs, is entirely self-imposed. But I agree with you that often groups which appear “different” are not as readily accepted.
I don’t see that as a failure of those who choose not to “assimilate.” I see that as a failure of the rest of us to accept those who are not like us.
With regard to the community center, you said, “When an Islamic group decided to build a memorial center at/near the site of the 9/11 attack, they should have been able to predict that this would upset a lot of people.”
I suspect most Muslims in this country recognize that building a mosque (or an Islamic community center) will upset people. Of course, most Muslims also recognize that a vocal minority of our country is upset simply by the fact that Muslims exist. Should Muslims allow intolerance, ignorance, and hatred to dictate their actions?
What troubles me most is your commentary on citizenship, and the implication as to who is and is not deserving of such. You use Muslim and immigrant interchangeably, as though the only Muslims in this nation are newcomers to our shores, ignoring those who have lived here and fought for this country in times of war for generations. And then you talk about how we “let Muslims believe stuff that unfits them for citizenship.”
I would love to know what these forbidden beliefs are, and how you feel they unfit someone for citizenship.
Last week I defended the right of a U. S. citizen to spread a message I despise. Because that’s what this country is supposed to be. Not a land of the like-minded. Not a land where thoughts and beliefs, religious or otherwise, disqualify one for citizenship. But a land of disagreement. A land that doesn’t fear difference, but celebrates it. A land that draws strength from diversity.
We don’t always live up to those ideals. When it comes to immigration and assimilation, we fail often. We mock those who are different. We pressure them to give up their history and their heritage. We drive a wedge between children of immigrants and their families. That is our failure, and it is unforgivable.
You mentioned the “responsibilities of citizenship in a non-Muslim country.” But this is a Muslim country. It is also a Jewish country. It is an atheist country. It is a country of Quakers and a country of Mormons, a country of Catholics and a country of Baptists. (Even, I have no doubt, a country of Jedi.)
I believe terrorists who would attack this country should be hunted down and stopped. I believe those whose beliefs lead them to violate the law should be punished. But I do not believe in punishing or restricting the rights of the many for the acts of a few. There are an estimated 600,000 Muslims living in New York City alone. They are as American as you or I. Not because they have been assimilated, but because this country welcomed them … even if sometimes its people do not.
You close by commenting on the responsibilities of citizenship. I believe one of those responsibilities is to defend the principles this country stands for … even when those principles make us uncomfortable.
I don’t mean to lecture, and it’s not my intention to talk down to you or attack you, but this is (obviously) something I feel very passionately about.
You remarked in your newsgroup, “Saying anything someone doesn’t like greatly reduces their ability to read what was written.” I suspect you will not like what I’ve written here. I hope, when you’ve gotten a little distance from the anger and pain your post triggered, that you’ll read it anyway. I don’t expect you to agree with everything I’ve said, but I hope you’ll consider why so many people have expressed feeling angry and hurt by your words.
Yours,
Jim C. Hines
MichaelM
September 20, 2010 @ 9:58 am
I really don’t like posts like Ms Moon’s because I think that even if one doesn’t intend to be offensive or ignorant, one can often come across as such and I, as a reader, often find myself reading blogs of authors I like, and when they post things like this it makes you think twice about supporting them.
One quote of that blog stood out to me, perhaps because I see myself as cynical:
“What distinguishes the unsuccessful citizen? Some old-fashioned vices: greed, dishonesty, laziness, selfishness, cruelty, anger/resentment, refusal to take responsibility for his/her own acts and their consequences. Anything that degrades the resources of the nation–including the human resources needed for a healthy society–anything that harms the nation–brands those who do it as unsuccessful, bad, citizens. ”
I disagree, and quite strongly. They’re things that people either put down to the human condition or are a trend of society as a whole, but it’s also a mix of minor quibbles and serious issues. We’re all selfish to some degree, but it doesn’t mean we’re “unsuccesful”. Cruelty is on a different level to laziness, too! Someone who’s lazy might not add to society, but someone who’s greedy is more likely to take from it.
The one thing many people forget in this situation is that the USA was built by immigrants. It’s a country formed on the sweat, tears and blood of slave labour from the African continent, from the hard work of the Irish settlers, from the order of the British and Spanish empires (Perhaps with a few other countries mixed in for good measure). What about the diseases the Spanish brought with them that wiped out civilization in South America? What about the backstabbing and treachery wrought by the American settlers?
You wouldn’t blame a German or Austrian person of my age for the atrocities of WW2. You wouldn’t blame American citizens of our generations for the destruction of the Native American’s world. So why would you blame the New York Muslims for the attack on the World Trade Centre? Why would you punish them for the acts of others? They have *every* right to build there.
Someone I “know” from New York has said that most of the controversy has come from people outside of New York. So, surely if the New York residents are fine with it, that should be the end of the matter…
Right?
MichaelM
September 20, 2010 @ 10:01 am
And I just read that. Argh, I need to get better at debating :p
Jim C. Hines
September 20, 2010 @ 10:34 am
“surely if the New York residents are fine with it, that should be the end of the matter…”
You would think so, wouldn’t you?
I agree that the division of successful vs. unsuccessful citizen is probably a bit to simple and arbitrary. I think I understand what she was getting at, and I don’t disagree with the idea there — that it’s important to look beyond one’s own desires and greed, and to contribute to those around her. But if anything that (unnecessarily) degrades the resources of a nation brands us as bad citizens, then I doubt there’s a single good citizen in the entire country.
Tweets that mention Jim C. Hines » Open Letter to Elizabeth Moon -- Topsy.com
September 20, 2010 @ 11:10 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Steven Saus and Beth Bernobich, Jim C. Hines. Jim C. Hines said: New Post: Open Letter to Elizabeth Moon http://bit.ly/9sgbJY […]
Elaine Corvidae
September 20, 2010 @ 11:20 am
One of the things that troubles me most about the debate is the extreme double-standard at work here. I suspect that Christian churches have been built in Oklahoma City after Timothy McVeigh (a Christian who subscribed to some pretty extreme beliefs) bombed the Federal building there. I also suspect that there were no huge protests over the building of those churches. Because the majority of Americans are of the religion that McVeigh nominally shared, the very idea that they would have to atone for his acts would be viewed as ludicrous. However, some of those very same people who would find a moratorium on the building of Christian churches, in a location where an act of terrorism was carried out by a Christian, to be an insulting proposition have no problem with the idea when applied to other groups.
In short, the majority is let off the hook any time one of their random nutcases does something heinous, where the minority is expected to atone for the crimes of their random nutcases. That’s unjust, however you look at it.
MichaelM
September 20, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Yeah, you would, Jim. I think it says more about society than it does the Islam/US divide. As you hinted at in your previous blog post, we’ve had some “outrage” here, but I think we’re too busy with being annoyed at the Pope for effectively calling atheists (who form a large percent of the British population) Nazis.
I sort of understand what she’s getting at, in that those who contribute little to society are “bad” compared to those who do, but to say a lazy person is an unsuccessful citizen is bad form. Greed doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person, either, although it’s hardly a desirable trait.
MichaelM
September 20, 2010 @ 11:25 am
You said what I was wildly flailing at better than I could. I agree completely 🙂
Flourish
September 20, 2010 @ 11:38 am
I so, so agree with this point.
Stephen Watkins
September 20, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Interesting. I was unfamiliar with Ms. Moon’s comments prior to this post, so I went ahead and read her post.
I find I largely agree with her opening thesis with regards to citizenry (she cites ample truths from the anals of corporate and ultra-wealthy/ultra-elite greed). And yet, her entire argument with regards to Muslims in NY is a complete non sequitor. It does not follow on the assertion that citizens have responsibilities that come attached to their rights (a fact that I couldn’t agree with more wholeheartedly) that therefore Muslims have a responsibility to not build a community center/mosque/whatever in the general environs of “somewhere in NYC”.
When I started reading, at first (having not read Jim’s response until I read hers), I was confused as to what Jim was going to find objectionable. When she launches into that tirade about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” I was somewhat taken aback because it’s like a total 180 in the tone of her post.
She does make a good point about the the difficulty the existing culture will have in accepting an “immigrant” population that intentionally self-isolates. But, again, this says nothing about the “responsibilities” of either culture, really, and is merely a commentary/observation on the nature of cultural interaction. I have to stand by Jim’s analysis, with regards to responsibility here, that our credo, as a de facto nation of diversity with such beliefs fully enshrined in our founding documents, that the responsibility ultimately lies with the prior, majority culture to fully understand and integrate the incoming culture. Ultimately, the results of this will not be total assimilation – and it never has been – but a more nuanced integration, whereby both incoming and receiving cultures and attitudes are changed, mutually, for the better.
Where I sympathize with her, because I have struggled with this problem myself, was her comment “The same with other points of Islam that I find appalling (especially as a free woman) and totally against those basic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution…” [emphasis mine], followed by ” to let Muslims believe stuff that unfits them for citizenship, on the grounds of their personal freedom.” I believe I know of what she speaks, here, and I have struggled with what the appopriate reaction should be to a religion that systematically treats a particular gender not merely as second-class but as actively inferior to another gender. This is a position and a belief that I do think is anathematic to the fundamentals of our free, tolerant, and open society.
Part of the answer, I’ve come to realize is in the problem of treating all of Islam as necessarily monolithic, which the facts on the ground show is absolutely out-of-sync with reality (anyone half-attuned to the news remembers the Shia/Sunni problem in Iraq… anyone more fully attuned came to know that there were profound theological differences between the two). As with Christianity, there is no single instantiation of Islam. Heck… there’s no Pope of Islam, nor a college of Cardinals, there’s no Primate nor Archbishop of Mecca, no Living Prophet, no Apostles, no unitary leadership of any kind. But, ideologically, we who are not of Islam continue to treat all of Islam as though there were only one set of Muslim beliefs, and not a wide range, even a continuum of different sects and groups under the general heading of Islam just as there are many under the general heading of Christianity.
It’s a faulty thinking that leads us to believe “well, Muslims in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Insert-destabilized-Muslim-majority-country-here believe that women are inferior to men and disallow women the same rights, therefore all Muslims must believe likewise”. I have not read the Qu’ran, but even so, even if in this text it suggests that women are inferior, or if it suggests that violence is a legitimate means of dealing with non-believers, I would invite my own Christian brothers and sisters to consider another book where these same beliefs are espoused, that being the Bible, and to then consider how far we’ve come in most Christian belief-systems to rejecting those ancient precepts… And as I can maintain, today, that Christianity in a general context is meant to be understood as a religion of peace and love and equality, notwithstanding the violent history of the Judeo-Christian tradition (both in the Judeo-part, during the ancient wars of the Hebrew people with the ancient Palistinians, and in the Christian-part concerning the Crusades, the Inquisition, et al.), I ought to afford Muslims the same opportunity to draw from their theological context the same meanings of peace and love.
But the theological discussion is largely an aside from our societal duty to stand by the principles by which we were founded and to stand in a place of tolerance and understanding to those who extend to us a hand of peace. When such a hand is extended, is it not our duty to take the gesture in good faith and extend our own hand in return – especially when we do so from a position of power?
That said, I guess I’ve run out of things to say and points to make in this particular topic.
Stephen Watkins
September 20, 2010 @ 11:57 am
Also: Amen.
Elizabeth
September 20, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
I have to point out an agreement with the fact that I’m a bit tired of finding out that authors that I like or admire are willing to stand up and say things that I find…problematic. I have at least one actor that I used to be a huge fan of until I added him on Twitter for about an hour and discovered how unsettling I found his actual political leanings.
Usually I try to just avoid learning these things, because in the words of one of my favorite songs, “You can’t shake the devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding.” Once I start to learn that these people really feel this way, I stop being able to view them separate from their work and support them. And I know I’ve lost my tolerance for at least one good author that way.
I have to say though, that THIS blog is refreshing. It’s nice to read that an author that I admire also has beliefs I can admire.
Ken Marable
September 20, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Thank you saying in a reasonable manner, what I am finding more and more difficult to stay reasonable over. Like others I largely agreed with her thoughts on citizenship (heck, I have said for years that one of the fundamental failings of our country is giving Rights a prominent place in the [amdended] Constitution without giving equal weight to Responsibilities). However, when she the shifted to the “Ground zero mosque” nontroversy*, she lost me entirely. At this point, about the best I can manage in reply to many of those up in arms over this is that everyone is entitled to their INFORMED opinion, and leave it at that. I have found it extremely difficult to stay reasonable when confronted with such unreasonable discourse. Thank you for saying what I have trouble continuing to say.
* Also thank you for pointing our that it is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero. For some reason “Islamic YMCA down the street from strip clubs” doesn’t seem to rile up the anti-muslim sentiment, I guess.
Jim C. Hines
September 20, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Yes. Similarly, there’s a pretty clear pattern as to who does and does not get labeled a terrorist for near-identical crimes.
Jim C. Hines
September 20, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
It’s hard, and I struggle sometimes with what to do when I love an author’s work but can’t stand his/her politics/opinions. Sometimes it’s so extreme it completely ruins their work for me. (Mel Gibson comes to mind.)
I don’t expect or demand that my entertainers share all of my beliefs, but there are some whose stated beliefs do affect my ability to read and enjoy their work. It can be disappointing, to say the least.
Jim C. Hines
September 20, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
It depresses me that so often Loud Opinion > Informed Opinion. Some days I think basic K-12 curriculum should include things like Fact Checking 101.
Ken Marable
September 20, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
“You wouldn’t blame a German or Austrian person of my age for the atrocities of WW2. You wouldn’t blame American citizens of our generations for the destruction of the Native American’s world. So why would you blame the New York Muslims for the attack on the World Trade Centre? Why would you punish them for the acts of others?”
Reminds me of the highly amusing (and as usual occasionally offensive) take on this issue on the Daily Show between Jon Stewart and John Oliver. It ranged from Stewart saying he is uncomfortable with Oliver speaking with a British accent given the Boston Massacre 140 years ago, or Oliver saying how Jews shouldn’t be allowed to wear yarmulkes on Good Friday. My hardest (and most uncomfortable) laugh was with the comment “But Catholics are still allowed to build churches next to playgrounds!”
They said the clear message here is that all members of a group should always be held responsible for the actions of the most extreme members of that group.
Ken Marable
September 20, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Argh! Typing fail!! The Boston Massacre was a little more than 140 years ago. Whoops!
Joe
September 20, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
I think one element of this situation needs to be called out rather forcefully: elements of the right wing are deliberately and systematically using the US Muslim community as a scapegoat, in hopes of uniting and expanding their base for the upcoming midterm elections. Moon completely misses this point, and may even have fallen for it to some extent. I don’t know whether you missed it, or it just wasn’t relevant to where you wanted to go, but I think it’s a central fact of any discussion about the role of Muslims in America today.
This matters because you can’t really have a discussion about how much damage the US Muslim community may or may not be doing to themselves by self-isolating, or failing to denounce Al Qaeda frequently and loudly enough, or proposing a Sufi cultural center several minutes from Ground Zero, without disentangling what they have actually done (or not done) from what political disinformation and public rumor claim they are doing (or not doing).
Brad R. Torgersen
September 21, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Jim, yours is a thoughtful response to Moon’s post — which is more than can be said for 85% of the poo-hurling monkeys who assaulted her LiveJournal account, before she deleted the entire comment thread in (understandable) disgust. I would propose that this apoplectic response to Moon’s rather mild, quite expressive post — it resonated with me, so I am sympathetic to Moon’s points — demonstrates precisely why the United States has not (cannot?) have an honest conversation about Islam. Any expression of mistrust, misgiving, or critical exploration of Islam’s fractured and contentious state — as a world religion, both intra and inter — is typically treated with the hydrochloric acid of accusation: racism, Islamophobia, bigotry, etc. Aas long as we’re going to slap the “ism” lable on the face of those who have doubts and questions, nothing productive can occur. Not for Muslims, not for dialogue, and certainly not for understanding between non-Muslim Americans and Muslim Americans seeking to differentiate themselves from the al-Qaedists and their murderous ilk.
Betty
September 21, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Jim, I like your response – nicely reasoned and calmly stated. I’d like to add one point, as a devout Christian – no one in New Testament times was more caring and open towards women than Jesus, and His teachings did not treat women as non-persons, as many authorities back then did. A careful and open-minded reading of the Bible might help people understand that (like the above mentioned Muslims) people who claim to be followers of Jesus and then turn around and treat women like second-class citizens have missed some major points and cannot be considered to be good examples of the religion they claim to be part of.
Jim C. Hines
September 21, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
I read many of the comments you characterize as “poo-hurling monkeys.” If you truly believe what you’re saying, then you might want to consider the difference between expressing anger/disappointment and “poo-hurling.”
Or do you feel that those who have been victimized by hate and discrimination shouldn’t be allowed to express anger and hurt?
Brad R. Torgersen
September 21, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Many of Moon’s most outraged critics are not, in fact, Muslim. As is common with this sort of thing at LiveJournal, Moon was found guilty of committing mindcrime, and she was descended upon by a cavalcade of uprightly outraged moral lecturers. Nothing she said mattered in her defense because almost everyone who attacked her had already tried and convicted her in the court of politically correct opinion. Nothing in her post warranted the backlash leveled against her by the LiveJournal troupe. That’s not dialogue. It’s a self-righteous harangue. Moon has my sympathies.
Jim C. Hines
September 21, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
“Many of Moon’s most outraged critics are not, in fact, Muslim.”
So anger is only permissible to those directly assaulted? If my friend is attacked, I’m not allowed to feel anger or speak up on his/her behalf?
“Moon was found guilty of committing mindcrime…”
I have no way of knowing what is in her mind or heart. I — and most others I’ve read — could only respond to the words she wrote.
“…almost everyone who attacked her had already tried and convicted her in the court of politically correct opinion.”
It gets a little tiring to constantly run into “Oh, you’re just being politically correct” as a way to dismiss or ignore people’s concerns. It’s a weak faux-attempt at argument.
Brad R. Torgersen
September 21, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
Are you saying Moon’s post made you emotionally angry?
In what way did Ms. Moon’s post directly attack a friend of yours?
Jim C. Hines
September 21, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Yes, her post made me emotionally angry. (As opposed to unemotional anger? I’m not sure what your qualifier there is supposed to mean.)
Do you want to just tell me what the rules are for when I am and am not allowed to be angry? I suspect that will save us both some time and reduce the back-and-forth.
“In what way did Ms. Moon’s post directly attack a friend of yours?”
Stating that friends of mine hold beliefs which “unqualify them for citizenship” seems like an attack to me. But I suspect where you’re going with this is that since she didn’t single me or my friends out by name, it wasn’t a direct attack, and therefore I’m still not allowed to be angry? Or maybe not. I need to wait until you clarify the rules for what I’m allowed to feel, and when.
Ken Marable
September 21, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
Also, you can’t remain silent in the face of injustice (and many of us see this unwarranted attack on what would otherwise be a benefit to the local community as a clear injustice). If we don’t look out for each other, then what sort of citizens are we then? (And it is fellow citizens who are trying to build this community center, some of whom may have family ties in this country even longer than my own!)
I never got to read the comments on her blog, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it got ugly on all sides.
Still that being said, like Jim, I was angry reading it. Not so much at her personally, but more at the overall verbal attack on innocent people that her post buys into. I sincerely believe she is stating honest views and concerns of hers. However, I also sincerely believe that this entire “controversy” was drudged up for far less noble reasons. It is very clearly part of an overall pattern that, yes, is quite racist and politically motivated. Note: that is not saying that anyone who buys into the misinformation and fear-mongering (like Moon) are racist themselves. But the origination of this entire issue is a systematic attack on a set of people utterly innocent of any wrong-doing to gain political leverage. Saying any group – muslim, black, gay, female, etc. – has less rights than Christians, whites, straights, men, etc. is wrong.
And yes, that does make me very angry even if I am not muslim, black, gay, or female. As a citizen trying to better this country, I will not stand for that sort of intolerance in my country and will speak out accordingly wherever I see it.
Brad R. Torgersen
September 21, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Jim, I’m not trying to say you can’t be angry. I’m not here to invalidate your emotional response — because I can’t. Though I will say this affair over Moon’s post, and specifically how many LiveJournal citizens behaved and treated Moon, has stirred a great deal of anger on my part. Which is why I am engaging people who have posed reasonable objections to what Moon wrote. Yours is quite reasonable, so perhaps I see my role here simply as a Moon apologist.
This is how I read the core of her argument, about Islam: that Muslims need to accept and understand the fact that when you embrace U.S. citizenship you also give up a lot of the intellectual protection you might otherwise enjoy in a nominally Muslim country. Your beliefs and ideals are going to be scrutinized, criticised, and often rejected. And this has to be okay. As long as you’re not having your civil or legal rights infringed upon, you have to get over the fact that some people are going to have a complete cow about what you believe. That’s part of what America is. And being a good citizen means learning not to have a cow because people have a cow. That’s my take-away. I think other people read it as meaning Moon advocated robbing Muslims of rights or citizenship, just for being Muslims, and I didn’t get that at all.
Jim C. Hines
September 21, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
Thanks for clarifying that, Brad. It helps me get a better grasp on what you’re saying.
I’m going to step back for the moment, and try to come back to this a little later.
Ken Marable
September 21, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
Honest question, not trying to bait an argument, I promise, but I’m curious what your thoughgts are on the specific issue at hand. I largely agree with you (however, I have issues with that in praftice since some groups can be scrutinized more than others, but that is a separate issue of practice rather than theory). Evenif I do agree with most of what you say, I still think that people having a cow should not prevent thefrom building a community center a couple blocks away from Ground Zero. It is one thing to say that I disagree with your beliefs.It is another to say and you are not allowed to set up busiensses/community centers in certain locations due to your religion. Sure, have a cow, but don’t think that means they have no right to build there. At least, that is how I see it.
Brad R. Torgersen
September 21, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Ken, I think they have every right to do whatever they want with property legally purchased. I also think they need to understand that, fair or no, once this became an issue on the national radar, the project took on a whole, huge new level of complexity, precisely because of context. (ergo, don’t have a cow if people have a cow.)
I think the best thing they could do at this point would be to kick the can down the road a little: issue a public statement saying that because they understand that the area surrounding the WTC site is ‘sensitive’ in the minds of many Americans, they’re going to reconsider where and when to construct. Not cancel. No way. Just modify. As a kindness to those Americans whom they understand are upset.
Sometimes the best thing you can do when someone is angry with you, is not press your issue, not politely explain to them why their anger is wrong or misplaced, but just back away and say, okay dude, I can dig it, I’ll back off and we’ll talk about this later. I think such a move, while not satisfying to those who see it as a principled stand against bigots, would prove greatly beneficial in relations with ‘normal’ Americans who aren’t Islamophobic in any way, they just want Muslims to understand that where 9/11 and the WTC are concerned, things aren’t as cut and dried as they ought to be.
Again, I am not saying take away their rights. I just wish some diplomacy would come into play, on the part of those seeking to build the center. It’s not fair what’s happened to them, but right now America and Americans have tons of questions about Islam, and proceeding with construction in the face of criticism is liable to come off as an emotional slap to a lot of people who might not otherwise feel any particular way about Islam or Muslims.
The Elizabeth Moon affair | Brad R. Torgersen
September 21, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
[…] Elizabeth Moon affair Posted on September 21, 2010 by Brad R. Torgersen Will Shetterly, Jim Hines, and I have been (sort of) beein carrying on a (sort of) conversation about Elizabeth Moon’s […]
Jim C. Hines
September 21, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
Brad,
Okay, thanks again for the clarification. Something that’s been nagging at me is your comment (and others) on how “reasonable” I’ve been. It occurs to me that perhaps one of the reasons I’m able to be “reasonable” is that I’m not directly affected by what Moon wrote. I’m not Muslim. I’m not an immigrant. While her words made me angry, they didn’t hurt me in the way they did others.
Which means, by responding only to those you deem “reasonable,” you could be filtering your conversation to exclude those most hurt by such things. And believe me, there are a lot of people out there with opinions and thoughts and experiences I believe are far more important to read than my own. (I would recommend http://shweta-narayan.livejournal.com/95168.html for starters.)
“Muslims need to accept and understand the fact that when you embrace U.S. citizenship you also give up a lot of the intellectual protection you might otherwise enjoy in a nominally Muslim country.”
I don’t know that I agree with your take on Moon’s post, but I don’t want to try to guess at her thoughts. However, I reject the idea that becoming a citizen of the United States means sacrificing intellection protection or freedom. Recognizing that it will happen? Probably, yes … meaning recognizing that people are human, and that some of us will fail to live up to the ideals of this nation. But *accepting* it? Pretending it’s okay that they will be criticized, rejected, and discriminated against purely based on their religious beliefs? If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t think we’re ever going to agree.
Brad R. Torgersen
September 21, 2010 @ 11:33 pm
Jim, Shweta’s experiences in some ways mirror my wife’s. My wife is brown-skinned, grew up an adopted child of white Catholic parents, was hated by the white kids when she lived in California, then moved to Hawaii and got to be hated by the whites and the pure-blood Hawaiins and the Hawaiin Japanese. Who were the worst offenders of all. Pretty brutal stuff, in terms of how she got treated by those Hawaiin Japanese. Thankfully she’s a tough cookie, but it still left a lot of scars.
And yet, I don’t think race and culture are one and the same. I think they are separate circles which overlap to an extent. I’ve been dealing with race and culture questions for the 18 years my wife and I have been together, and the ways these issues involve each other, overlap, and even interfere with understanding certain problems, are too complex to wrestle with here. We’d probably need hours and many thousands of words, and I suspect we’d find a great deal upon which to disagree.
As for intellectual protection, what I mean by that is a Shia from Iran can expect a certain degree of invisible immunity in Iran — from having his or her base religious beliefs questioned by the overall culture.
Here in the U.S. where secularism is taking over, there literally are no sacred cows. Well, Islam is sort of a sacred cow — because of the progressive fear that using the same critical eye on Islam as is used on Catholicism or Scientology, is equivalent to racism or Islamophobia.
Part of being a good citizen — I suspect Moon was saying — is not expecting to be the receiver of ‘cultural awarness and understanding’ while being unwilling to be the giver of same. I’ve supped with Muslims from two continents — some of them very nice people for the most part — who have adamantly defended their right to call my religious beliefs false and even evil, while at the same time telling me in very reasoned tones that I have no right to treat their beliefs in the same manner. They did this without blushing or any awareness whatsoever of the hypocrisy of those statements.
Steve Buchheit
September 23, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Every weekend I can listen to radio broadcast in German, Italian, Slavic, Polish, and French, all broadcast out of Cleveland. We have many “cultural groups” that hang on to their cultural identity from the homeland, even past the fourth generation of the original immigrants. They like to have “cultural festivals” (Greek, Polish, Slavic, Irish, and German are the big ones that come to mind). In their clubs they dress in “native” costume and dance their traditional dances.
Nobody questions their Americanism.
Also, the Puritans arrived on these shores to intentionally separate themselves from the culture of the English (and the Church of England) and refused to “assimilate” into the rest of the colonies.
The argument is based on ignorance and pop-cult psychology and is designed as a cynical political gesture to rile up the faithful and drive them to the polls on Nov. 2.
Kim W.
September 30, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
“Reminds me of the highly amusing (and as usual occasionally offensive) take on this issue on the Daily Show between Jon Stewart and John Oliver. It ranged from Stewart saying he is uncomfortable with Oliver speaking with a British accent given the Boston Massacre 140 years ago, or Oliver saying how Jews shouldn’t be allowed to wear yarmulkes on Good Friday.”
Jon Stewart also had a brilliant observation — he re-ran footage of Charlton Heston at an NRA rally, where he gave a speech defending the rights of the NRA holding an event near the site of the Columbine High School shooting. “It’s not fair,” said Heston, “to consider the actions of a deranged few as being indicative of the entire group.”
“As much as I hate to admit it,” Stewart then said, “He was right then. But you know what? If you think about Park51, HE’S STILL RIGHT.”
Kim W.
September 30, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
“Part of being a good citizen — I suspect Moon was saying — is not expecting to be the receiver of ‘cultural awarness and understanding’ while being unwilling to be the giver of same. I’ve supped with Muslims from two continents — some of them very nice people for the most part — who have adamantly defended their right to call my religious beliefs false and even evil, while at the same time telling me in very reasoned tones that I have no right to treat their beliefs in the same manner. They did this without blushing or any awareness whatsoever of the hypocrisy of those statements.”
That these people said this to you was unconscionable.
But it also has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, to wit: building a Muslim-themed community center within four blocks of “Ground Zero.”
The people building the community center are NOT seeking to eradicate all other religious institutions in the area (of which there are two). They are not seeking to eradicate all other businesses in the area (least of which the strip clubs, of which there are three). They are not seeking to CLOSE DOWN anything in their wake. They just want to set up shop and join a community, and serve a portion OF the existing community.
Personally, I find that one perspective which is also getting overlooked in all this furor is — that of the New York City citizen. For the past nine years I have been watching the 9/11 mythos get shaped into something completely unrecognizeable to someone who actually lived THROUGH what happened. Once a year we see scores of people with tear-streaked faces waving flags and urging us to “never forget,” but the rest of the year? Forget it. Ask many of those same flag-wavers whether they’d consider visiting New York City, because we still could use the tourism dollars in our economy, and like as not we’re met with a sneering, “seriously? That place is a slime pit with all the crime and the freaks.” Point out to many of those “patriots” that there are scores of former EMT workers who need extended health benefits to cope with heatlh problems sustained DURING 9/11 and its cleanup, and we get told, “It was their job, they should suck it up.” Point out to many of these “patriots” that the city has 600,000 Muslims — hell, even point out to many of them that a goodly number of the people who died ON 9/11, and whose remains are IN Ground Zero, are also Muslim, and we get told, “a mosque there would shame their memory.”
Sometimes I feel like the rest of the country would have preferred the whole of New York City was wiped out that day, so it could be a nice sanitized “memorial” rather than remaining a living, breathing, functioning city.
The “harm” of political correctness: a rant | Epiphany 2.0
October 7, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
[…] to show open contempt for back in the days of their youth. But I’ve seen this attitude among younger people too, so it’s not strictly an artifact of lost historical privilege. It even comes in new […]
Gregory A. Wilson
November 1, 2010 @ 2:47 am
“Here in the U.S. where secularism is taking over…”
You’re kidding, right?