US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has met [mostly desi] Muslim leaders in north-west England in a trip during which protesters expressed anger that an architect of the Iraq war was on their home turf… Dr Rice had been due to visit a mosque in Blackburn until its governors withdrew their invitation out of fear the occasion would be hijacked by demonstrators…
Cartoons lampooned the visit with The Independent carrying one showing a sign at a Blackburn Indian restaurant: “We regret we do not serve Rice.” [Link]
great post title!
Blackburn is 250 miles away from London
Good point by my namesake. In British terms, this is the equivalent of the distance between Los Angeles and Seattle.
I think it is all the same to them, Jai
So the British demographic group with the poorest social indicators (income, education, health, incarceration rates) objects to American policy. Cry me a river.
Actually, you’ll find that objections to American policy cut across social lines in the UK. Although I am perplexed as to what the ‘social indicators’ of these protestors have to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of their protests.
blockquote>Actually, you’ll find that objections to American policy cut across social lines in the UK. not a flame – an observation in the spirit of tocqueville – one of the unique characteristics of the american mindset is the need and the ability to establish metrics and measurements around every action – it is a powerful tool if used to enforce accountability and to improve efficiencies – but is limited on the line of sight linkages between cause and effect.
While the objections to America’s Iraq policy may be shared by many Britons, they do not equate Rice to a Child Killer and the highly un-original Bush-Hitler comparison. The social indicators are important since British Muslims have not gotten their own house in order, they are in no position to lecture others on how to conduct their affairs. OTOH, if an American Muslim states his or her objections to Bush, I am more willing to listen to them, since they are better integrated, educated, and less prone to the rhetorical flourishes of their British counterparts.
You are right. Hitler is passe. I prefer a comparison with Mugabe.
it’s a logical line of thinking but isnt this an assumption on your part that the protests were limited to British muslims alone.
So you are asserting that criticism of American policy is only to be listened to when it comes from individuals who have passed the KXB social indicator test? I see. Who is ‘they’, by the way? If a British Muslim who has his or her ‘affairs in order’ to your satisfaction, will he or she be excluded from the right to criticise American policy because she or he is a British Muslim? So you ascribe collective responsibility and collective traits to individuals?
What about African-Americans? I understand they have poor social indicators too. Is an African-American individual not permitted to criticise American policy because ‘African-Americans have not got their house in order’ too?
Is it? Are you saying that Hanif Kureishi or Salman Rushdie, both British Muslims, should not criticise American policy because they happen to belong to the British Muslim community who ‘have not got their house in order’? Do you think that is logical dhavaak?
” … I prefer a comparison with Mugabe.”
I’m sure plenty of Africans will miss the humor. The again, poor Africans living under despots do not seem to arouse the passions of Europe’s leftists. Possibly because disgruntled Africans living in Europe do not demonstrates their objections by blowing up trains, stabbing movie directors on city-streets, or hiding behind the veil of religion to excuse their backwardness.
“…it’s a logical line of thinking but isnt this an assumption on your part that the protests were limited to British muslims alone.”
No – the original post focused on the protests of British Muslims, and my comment was on that. Going from the pictures, the adults could learn a thing or two about manners from the school-children.
So it is a matter of etiquette that causes you so much offence? Ironic then that you resort to a very broad and crude (and rude) brush stroke yourself in response. One thing politicians have to get used to is that the rhetoric of protest is very sharp, especially politicians from powerful nations that launch wars – calling Condoleeza Rice a child killer may not be pleasent but if a war she was integral to launching resulted in the deaths of children at American hands (which it did) then it is an entirely legitimate piece of sloganeering. The onus falls on those who object to the charge to explain to the protestors why they believe the deaths of children at the hands of American soldiers was worth it. Instead, you chose to attack their legitimacy for saying that on some spurious grounds of ‘not having their house in order’ – even though you don’t have a clue about the personal status of the individuals involved.
There are two issues here – one is expressing objections to Bush’s policy. People are free to express that however they wish. Given Bush’s sagging poll numbers, there are plenty of people on this side of the Atlantic that object to the policy. The second issue is the manner in which the objection is expressed. Voting against Bush, lobbying your representatives to reverse his policies – all of these are perfectly acceptable avenues to pursue. But I can’t give much respect to people who believe that removing Hussein from power – a man who killed more Muslims than anyone in the 20th century, who invaded Iran, annexed Kuwait, launched missiles into Saudia Arabia and Mecca – was an unforgivable act of aggression.
The comparison of British Muslims to African Americans is a poor one – to put in mildly. Compare rates of home ownership, voter participation, holding elective office at local, state, and federal levels, representations in police forces, military branches, and judiciaries – Britain and the rest of Europe are in no position to lecture the U.S. on majority-minority matters.
Typo – that should read “launched missiles into Saudia Arabia and Israel”
The poverty is in your initial assertion – that the protests of British citizens of Muslim background are illegitimate because they ‘have not got their house in order’. Even though you know nothing about the individuals protesting, you set up a straw man fallacy and engage in the most fallacious tu quoque argument that amounts to little more than a base prejudice. No amount of ink squirting clouds this fact.
Huh? You are vexed by the manner in which they protested? They held up placards and that is enough to cause you grief? The manner in which people protested? Are you being serious? For this you object yourself irrationally and with vulgarian brush strokes?
please avoid replying to posts with adversarial closed-end questions – that tactic alienates and antagonizes – not good, especially among friends 🙂 – also my request would be to diverge the discussion before converging into baked conclusions
Here’s my thoughts. Based on the coverage of the downing street memos in local media there is a certain amount of frustration among the british public on having been arm-twisted into a war they didnt want. that might be one of the reasons for the condemnation of rice’s visit. i really dont see this as an issue driven by race or religion. To her credit Ms Rice took this much better. in a tv interview she acknowledged peoples’ rights to protest. and my position is the same – Rice is the figurehead, the lightning rod for the criticism in this criticism – there’s deeper stuff on the boil here. what are the issues driving the blackburn protests?
If you believe my initial assertion was unwarranted, then you would have been better off focusing on that, rather than trying to switch the topic to compare British Muslims and African Americans. Now that you wish to return to my initial post – fine. A British demographic group, that scores poorly on most social indicators, despite having the same opportunities (and obstacles) faced by other immigrant groups, need not be taken too seriously when formulating American policy. Advancing American interests is the primary responsibility of any administration. If the pursuit of that policy is no longer teneable, and the American electorate objects, then it should be revised or abandoned. With this kind of outrage, you’d think Rice drew a couple of offensive cartoons.
I was amused by the way that desi political slogans have matured. In my day it was endless repitition of “Who’s the butcher!” in accents so thick that no passerby could understand. Now desis have graduated to references to slightly dated hit singles:
It gives me an image of people singing “Who let the bombs out? Boom ba boom ba boom … ” loudly to drown her out.
Black humor? Perhaps – but that of the protestors (who chose the slogan) not mine.
KXB
Your whole argument is fallacious and falls apart like a matchstick man in a hurricane. Your introduction of ‘social indicators’ as a test as to the legitimacy of a persepctive is certainly a novel one and the comparison with African-Americans was to show the mendacity and peculiar aspect of your basic assertion – that the strength of an argument is gauged by the ‘social indicators’ of the broad social group to which an individual belongs. I don’t expect you to acknowledge that because of the basic speciousness of your argument and mindset – and the fact that you seem to be outraged by the ‘manner’ of the protests as much as anything. Extraordinary! You do a disservice to American policy with the basic vulgarity of your discourse. There are better advocates for American policy than you.
Blackburnstan? Blackburnia? Blackburnistan?
The issue is peoples objection to the war dhavaak. What other issues do you suspect? Given that Rice’s visit to Liverpool, a city with a tiny Muslim population, was similarly boycotted and protested by white Liverpudlians, it should be clear that the issue driving the protests were quite simply objections to the war in Iraq.
“Your introduction of ‘social indicators’ as a test as to the legitimacy of a persepctive is certainly a novel one and the comparison with African-Americans was to show the mendacity and peculiar aspect of your basic assertion – that the strength of an argument is gauged by the ‘social indicators’ of the broad social group to which an individual belongs.”
Expecting a certain level of education is not an outrageous demand. If the poor state of British Muslims was due entirely to a hostile British majority, I might reconsider. But given that other UK immigrant groups do not display the same degree of dysfunction, it seems reasonable to ask Muslims to tend to their own matters first before hectoring others. Indeed, one of the credible critiques you hear stateside is that America has plenty of issues at home before going off on foreign adventures.
Given the generally poor performance of Muslim students in the UK, the high-rate of Muslim cousin marriage leading to higher rates of birth defects, their higher rates of incarceration – it’s just difficult to take them seriously when they object to America’s actions in Iraq. When you factor in that more Muslims in the UK hail from South Asia than the Middle East, the protests have a humourous aspect to them. It would be akin to Mexicans protesting British policy in Northern Island, to demonstrate solidarity with their fellow Catholics. Of course, expressing such ummah solidarity has not earned Pakistanis and Bangladeshis any better treatment as they labor in the Middle East.
KXB,
You are correct in your statements about the relatively poor educational/professional perfomance of British (South Asian) Muslims as a group in comparison with their non-Muslim peers; however, you are assuming that all/most of the recent protestors in Blackburn also fall into this category.
This is not necessarily the case. For my part, I don’t know what the exact educational background of those involved is either, but it’s wise not to make negative assumptions without full knowledge of the facts.
Jai – I will concede that the demonstrators in the picture may not have all the negative social indicators that I listed earlier. But, if they are well-adjusted, educated, and law-abiding – wouldn’t their efforts be better spent on addressing those issues, thereby removing those issues from the table, rather than engaging in rather childish name-calling on a foreign official over which they yield no influence?
KXB,
As Ms Rice herself stated, the fact they have the freedom to exercise their right to protest is a hallmark of a functioning democracy. Regardless of whether the protesters’ actions have any impact on the decisions of the foreign officials concerned, they are basically making a “statement” by voicing their objections in this manner. They have the right to do this, and this basic right belongs to every citizen of a democractic country — regardless of the educational, financial, or professional background of the individuals concerned, and regardless of whether they are actually correct in their assertions and conclusions.
As long as the protests are conducted peacefully and within the limits of the law, I don’t see what the problem is.
What an utterly fatuous and pompous argument. Like I said, your tu quoque reckoning and prejudice does a disservice to the American policy you seek to advocate.
“… and regardless of whether they are actually correct in their assertions and conclusions.”
I would disagree with you on this point. Just as Bush and Co. are rightfully criticized for the mis-reading and mishandling of the intelligence leading up to the war, and how that war has been conducted, those who object to the policies should be correct in their assertions and conclusions.
” Like I said, your tu quoque reckoning and prejudice”
Hardly – it comes down to the credibility of the accuser. Once Muslims in Britain establish their credibility, then their opinions will be taken seriously.
KXB wrote:
The social indicators are important since British Muslims have not gotten their own house in order, they are in no position to lecture others on how to conduct their affairs
it comes down to the credibility of the accuser. Once Muslims in Britain establish their credibility, then their opinions will be taken seriously.
This, KXB, is much funnier than your usual comments. No member of a group with poor social indicators on a National level has a right to have their political opinions taken seriously! But this does not disqualify African American exemplar Condy Rice becuase … wait for it .. African Americans have low rates of cousin marriage!
(And low rates of incarceration? No wait, that doesn’t work…!)
How about this, and it should be obvious, if every Africans-American decided to marry their siblings, it wouldn’t affect Rice’s credibility one bit. It is the quality of a persons argument, not his or her ethnic or religious background, that determines how seriously they should be taken.
Though, given the arguments in your comments above, I can see why you prefer the opposite!
Ikram – see post #14. African Americans better social and economic indicators, (when compared to British Muslims) is the reason that Jay Singh’s comparison of the two groups made no sense. Followed by the little fact that African Americans vote in American elections, unlike British Muslims, who seem pre-occupied with keeping the world safe from cartoons, but unsafe to ride the trains.
While your “blog first, think later” posts are eyecatching and entertaining, you’d be better served if you take a few moments to gather your thoughts.
This is how things should be – however, that’s not how things work in the real world. If Muslims are demonstrating as a group, then their success metric as a group matters to the discourse. However, if a Muslim is demonstrating on his/her own, and/or with non-muslims, then his/her individual quality will be taken into account.
M. Nam
KXB,
British Muslims are not a homogeneous group. They do not all think alike, behave alike, or have the same beliefs. They are also not some kind of united group under formal (or indeed informal) Muslim leadership figures who represent them en masse and to whom they swear allegiance.
To refer to them collectively in this manner is wrong, as is the concept of ascribing collective guilt.
KXB wrote: African Americans better social and economic indicators, (when compared to British Muslims) is the reason that Jay Singh’s comparison of the two groups made no sense
Well, you were the one to put British Muslim in a British Context (you wrote: despite having the same opportunities (and obstacles) faced by other immigrant groups, so one would put African-Americans in an African American cotnext. But let’s put that aside. This isn’t the place to debate the relative importance of cousin-f*ckin as a social indicator.
You’re sticking to your position that members of groups with poor social outcomes on a national level ought not to have their political opinions heeded?
For example, Sikh Canadians have lower levels of education than other Canadians, and in the Vancouver area, have higher than average involvement in crime. You’re saying that the political opnions of Sikh Canadians should be ignored until they reach the National average?
While your “blog first, think later” posts are eyecatching and entertaining
And yours are too. I’Ve enjoyed them since I first read them. I couldn’t have created a better straw man myself.
MoorNam,
I understand your point of view, but this statement is only correct if a) the entire Muslim population in a particular country is demonstrating, or b) groups legitimately representing the rest of the Muslim population are demonstrating.
Ironically, it’s exactly that kind of reasoning which has resulted in many jihadists rejecting the legitimacy of democracy as a political system.
Jai,
That may be true – but right now, which aspect of British Muslim behavior is in ascendancy? That which seeks to integrate with the mainstream, while holding on to its traditions which do not stand in opposition to an open society? Or, a rejectionist faction, that intimidates internal critics and demands respect from outsiders by virtue not of its reasoning, but its resorting to violence. We in the West do not help Muslims if we continuously acede to the wishes of its worst elements.
“You’re sticking to your position that members of groups with poor social outcomes on a national level ought not to have their political opinions heeded?”
Yes – because they live in a foreign country.
Ikram – it’s really not that hard. British Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. have no say in the formation of American policy, simply beacuse they are not a part of the American political system. They are free to participate in British politics, and lobby British MPs to their point of view. How Canada wants to treat its Sikhs is entirely a matter for Canadians.
I agree with what you’re trying to say, but in essence you’ve answered your own question. It’s not the Muslim community in its entirety which is the problem, but those elements within it which have violent/jihadist tendencies (which, by the way, the protesters in Blackburn do not necessarily have anything to do with).
Also, I must again stress the dangers of thinking of the entire British Muslim population as a semi-united group — it’s the same mistake many British politicians and social engineers have made in the last few years. They’re not literally a “society within a society” — those living in Muslim-majority areas may be (especially if they deliberately avoid unnecessary contact & socialisation with the rest of the British population) — but to keep thinking of the “British Muslim community” as a single group is as misguided as assuming that (for example) “all” desis/South Asians/whatever term you want to use/etc are also a single, united group, with the same beliefs and the same agenda, and to subsequently ascribe collective behaviour and collective guilt to them. Hell, Sepia Mutiny itself is an excellent example of how misguided a non-South Asian visitor to this blog would be if he/she made the latter assumption.
Ikram, dude, seriously, that is the funniest thing i’ve heard today.. priceless!
jai, i would further ask some of the other posters if they know exactly how many muslims, of all cultures, live in the UK. then, i would ask if they know how many among them ascribe to the more reactionary extremist ultra-orthodox beliefs within.
because i gotta tell u, the time i lived in lhr, i maybe met 1 out of all the muslims, of various hue and socio-economics, professionas, various locales, that was anywhere near the sort of persons we see on tv…
i have been arguing this pt. for a while, or a while i,ve been here on sepia, that one cannot simply attribute an ENTIRE population th eactions and beliefs of a few, no matter how vocal they are.
i am saying this again, from my personal understanding and knowledge and experience, these elements DO NOT represent the views of not only the majority of muslims worldwide, but specifically, the ones in the UK.
and BTW, KXB, th emuslims i knew in the UK were inthe highest strata of their professions, like in the US, of law, government, engineering etc..
not all of us sell pan and kulfi and dodgy phonecards in jackson heights and bricklane…
get a grip
Jai – I understand your point that British Muslims come from varied backgrounds, be they national, linguistic, which sect of Islam, etc. But when they demonstrate, they are not organized along such divisions, because it would be impractical to do so. So, they point out what they have in common, which is their faith. They are not asking that the government or majority be aware of their varied background. It is the drawback of any group identity – you want your rights and freedoms respected as a member of a group, but you do not want to be lumped in with the violent elements of that group.
Again, compare the American and British examples. American Muslims oppose the war, many are working actively through associations to get their opinions heard in Congress, they are at the forefront of pointing out civil rights violations, and they have rejected violence.
Dude(ette):
Paulene Kael, the legendary film critic for The New Yorker, expressed shock on Election Day, 1972, when Nixon won by a landslide. She said something to the effect that she had no idea how Nixon could win because, “no one I know voted for him.”
My interaction with Muslims is just like yours – they are engineers, shopkeepers, doctors, cabdrivers – many at the top of their field. If politics or religion were ever discussed, even when our disagreements would get passionate (onlne or in person), I would never fear for my physical safety. This is in contrast to my Indian-based family, that still has living members who remember fleeing their homes in Bengal in 1947, and cannot fathom (or perhaps are envious) at how Hindus and Muslims get along in the states. But, personal experience cannot form the sole basis of forming a national policy.
As for the jab at paan and kulfi sellers – I don’t know what brought that about.
KXB wrote:
The social indicators are important since British Muslims have not gotten their own house in order, they are in no position to lecture others on how to conduct their affairs
And then wrote:
British Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. have no say in the formation of American policy, simply beacuse they are not a part of the American political system.
So we’ve moved from saying that individuals that are part of ethnic groups with poor social outcomes should not have their political opinions heeded to saying that foreigners should not have their political views heeded. That’s a much less humorous opinion.
But it’s still a little funny.
KXB, you’d agree that no American should have their views on British politics heeded (‘taken seriously’?). And that view applies equally to your own view on British Muslims (you wrote: it seems reasonable to ask [British] Muslims to tend to their own matters first before hectoring others.?
Should I take seriously a foreigner who tells me not to take foreigners seriously?
KXB, well, first, not jab, simply pointing out not everyone who is muslim is below ur def. of social indicator, thats what brought that about.
i usually say imo or experience, because, i have noticed many people have these huge far reaching opinions or generalisations based on assuption, or, bias. i generally in my personal and professional life make it apparent that i am not all knowing or understanding or all even, all caring. it doesn tmatter if i have a PhD in political economy or i work for the the WB or IMF or am a 1st secretary in a sAsian embassy, nothign means i am qualified in anyway or form to make any sort of statement thta is not opinion. not even if i quoted fact, or stats. i know of very many diplomats and gurus and pundits who were completely off base about irag war or the taliban or u name it. political scientist in my experience even when in the field are no more accurate than economists. again, imo.
so nothing personal to you per se, its a manner of communicationl etting the reader/listener know i am stating something based on my personal life experience, not some sort of authority…
my family is not indian-based, nor were they directly affected by partition, or the 71 war of independence or for that matter ww2. but our personal experince certainly shape our personal beliefs, ergo, the aggregate of personal belief shape the make-up of our governments, ergo, they do indirectly, in fact, shape nat’l int’l policy…
scoosie, typing is nto my first language..
thorry bout the sp, two fingers can only type so accurately
my word, are you for real!?
what’s going on guy?! is there something personal you want to share.
Dude(tte),
Now I want kulfi. Anyone else?
plain for me…
mmmm