It seems a little anti-climactic to say it, but given how long we’ve been arguing talking about M.I.A. here, it probably needs to be addressed: M.I.A’s “Paper Planes” has been nominated for “Best Record of the Year.”
She’s up against Robert Plant and Alison Krauss, on a groundbreaking country music collaboration, and Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida.” So she has no chance of winning (the Grammy’s usually favor established artists and veteran rock stars over rappers, even innovative rappers). Still, chica has come a very long way since she started out a few years ago.
I also wanted to take this opportunity to wish her and her fiancé the best for the child they’re expecting. There’s something profoundly humanizing and clarifying about becoming a parent, though it also changes how most people approach their work and career. (Whatever happens, I do hope that M.I.A. will show up on Noggin and do a song for Yo Gabba Gabba! like The Ting Tings recently did. Perhaps a child-friendly version of “Galang Galang”?)
Speaking of raising children, and on a somewhat more serious note, it seems worth saying that the story that moved me most this (terrible) past week was the story of the Indian ayah, Sandra Samuel, who risked getting shot by cocaine-snorting, steroids-injecting, Islamofascist psychos, to rescue little Moshe Holtzberg at Chabad House in Mumbai:
I was pleased to see that the Israeli government has given her a high honor for what she did. She deserves it.
Ohmigod! I hope the Senate has a full committee hearing on how substance abuse is hurting the reputation of good hardworking terrorists everywhere. Maybe they should put an asterisk against the Mumbai attacks to reflect this in the annals of history.
Kinda takes the sting out of anti-establishment chic, doesn’t it? Although I guess it hasn’t hurt rappers railing against da man any.
Not to take anything away from her, but the story that I read was that she got to the ground floor where commandos who had just entered without the knowledge of the terrorists hustled her out. This might also explain why the commandos operated so cautiously under the assumption that the hostages were alive, despite the nanny saying that she saw the Rabbi and his wife being shot even as she ran out of the room.
i.e. the commandos didn’t really have time to fully debrief the nanny and process that intelligence in planning their assault on Nariman House.
Ohmigod! I hope the Senate has a full committee hearing on how substance abuse is hurting the reputation of good hardworking terrorists everywhere.
I found that detail interesting not because it somehow makes the terrorists seem “immoral” (which would be redundant). Rather, I just think it adds to the idea of the complete insanity of their actions — they didn’t trust themselves to be murderous enough, so they used drugs to get even more murderous.
It’s going to make her a better artist, methinks.
Add to that the Ayah and 40 breastfeeding Mothers story.
5 · bess said
That was a brilliant story. Kudos to her for her presence of mind. The stories of how much more massive carnage was avoided at some place so vulnerable as a hospital full of invalids and babies due to a large dose of luck (with a helping of wit, like in the ayah story) really emphasizes the randomness of the deaths.
Another incredible story at Cama.
4 · Amardeep said
I understood from the article that they used the drugs as uppers so they could stay awake and alert for as long as they needed, analogous to amphetamine abuse which seems like standard practice for pilots in warzones.
And among child soldiers (i.e., the use of amphetamines to sharpen alertness or dull judgment against violent activity has documented use in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and northern Uganda).
was this necessary?
was this necessary?
“Islamofascist”: probably yes. (Yes, it’s an emotional, over-the-top term, but I’m pissed. And it is at least a somewhat accurate representation of the motivating ideology here.)
“Psychos”: probably redundant.
Can’t stand MIA’s music
About the article about ayah, Sandra Samuel, I think its interesting that she goes from “nanny” to “the governess of baby Moshe” to “playmate”. I’m glad she got props for her courage, but its interesting how all those different ways of describing her carry different meanings (and class allusions)
What was wrong with it?
I’ve read several different stories about the escape of the nanny but regardless happy to hear such stories about people who survived and helped despite grave danger to their lives. It’s always heartwarming and reassuring of humanity to read such stories.
Hmmm… Having some second thoughts, on “Islamo-fascism”…
Katha Pollitt makes some good points against the use of the term, in The Nation:
What’s wrong with “Islamo-fascism”? For starters, it’s a terrible historical analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movements of the 1920s and ’30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, all-encompassing states. Some of the trappings might have been anti-modernist–Mussolini looked back to ancient Rome, the Nazis were fascinated by Nordic mythology and other Wagnerian folderol–but the basic thrust was modern, bureaucratic and rational. You wouldn’t find a fascist leader consulting the Bible to figure out how to organize the banking system or the penal code or the women’s fashion industry. Even its anti-Semitism was “scientific”: The problem was the Jews’ genetic inferiority and otherness, which countless biologists, anthropologists and medical researchers were called upon to prove–not that the Jews killed Christ and refused to accept the true faith. Call me pedantic, but if only to remind us that the worst barbarities of the modern era were committed by the most modern people, I think it is worth preserving “fascism” as a term with specific historical content.
“Islamo-fascism” looks like an analytic term, but really it’s an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them, with war to the end the only answer, as with Hitler. (link)
On the other hand, Christopher Hitchens makes some strong points in favor of using the term:
The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Gen. Francisco Franco’s sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repressionâ€â€especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance”â€â€and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures. (link)
He goes on to accept some qualifications on the applicability of the term (i.e., the absence of a state structure), but still finds that it’s “permissible” to use it.
I know I’m not the only one who expected this post to be about an overeating grandmother.
8 · Camille said
Podhoretz/Commentary types/Kagan must be served–at least under emotional duress.
The cocaine can be injected (insufflation is unecessary) and anabolic steroids do not aid with aggression (unless you think Gary Wadler is a credible source on the subject), but faster recovery from high-intensity exercise.
In the beginning, i thought she was quite wonderful. Now, i just wish MIA would go away.
thanks for posting the discussions regarding the usage of “islamofacism”, Amardeep, it was was informative and useful.
MIA has performed in one song for Rehman’s Slumdog Millionaire soundtrack which also includes Paper Planes. So this is def her time in the spotlight. Is she really going to stop performing now that she has made it?
Rahul said:
Thanks!
Podhoretz/Commentary types/Kagan must be served–at least under emotional duress.
Actually, I used the term because I think it’s important not to hide from the motivating ideology. (Admittedly, a safer term to have used might have been “Jihadists.”)
Amardeep,
i don’t think anyone would’ve called you a coward for using “jihadists” instead of that neoconservative twaddle.
i also fell off my chair when i read this. doesn’t sound like amardeep, sounds like me. but in the context of indian politics, where we talk openly of hindu fascism, it makes sense. even in america, christian fascism and bush as fascist is not unheard of. fascism,in its most colloquial sense, and as musssolinni meant it, is simply right-wing collectivism. nor does it strike me as an ethnic slur.
what it does is get to the essence of the problem: the jingoism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, authoritarianism, and general anti-liberalism that is radical islam, and to a lesser degree, the cultures from which this ideology springs from. this is a proiblematic formulation for many on the left, because they (legitimately ) worry it’ll lead to another form of jingoism, that’ll it will drag the victims even further to the right (think fdr and the internment), and just simply puts them between a rock and a hard place (between islamophobia and islamofascism). plus it diverts from their anti-capitalist agenda.
so, this formulation gets swept under the rug as bigotry.
On the debate about the term “Islamo-fascism” – Katha Pollitt’s arguments don’t really wash with me. Is the suggestion that Hitler’s genocidal program was rational? It may have had the trappings of modernity, but clearly it failed most reasonable criteria of rationality. To deny the applicability of the term “Islamo-fascist” to fundamentalist Muslims because of their supposedly anti-modern ideology overlooks their willingness to partake of the fruits of modernity; their blackberries and the internet, and(as Hitchens points out)automatic weaponry… Perhaps it is an oversimplification to label extremist Muslim movements as anti-modern. Which tradition exactly does suicide bombing belong to? I also disagree with the conclusion that the term necessarily sets up an “Us vs Them” dichotomy with war as the only solution. If anything, I think it could help us to distinguish between different forms or expressions of Islam and identify those aspects of history which have contributed to the rise of the scariest kinds. War
i don’t think anyone would’ve called you a coward for using “jihadists” instead of that neoconservative twaddle.
Again, I’m not worried about anyone calling me this thing or that thing. You can’t please everyone, so you might as well just be true to yourself. The Hindu nationalists who comment here will go back to accusing me of a double-standard tomorrow, and I really couldn’t care less.
Sometimes you have to use the language that best reflects the anger you feel, as long as it doesn’t perpetuate the cycle of violence. There is no neutral, clinical way of describing what these people did. It is insane on so many levels. For me it is much worse than ordinary suicide bombing (which is strangely passive — a matter of pushing a button), because they were actively seeking out individual targets, and mowing them down again and again, with vicious randomness.
And it is motivated by a particular, twisted religious ideology. Given the scale of the crime we’re talking about, it matters little whether we call it “Jihadism” (an Arabic-derived word which means [in this context] killing random innocent people in the name of religion) or “Islamo-fascism” (a Latin-derived word, which means killing random innocent people in the name of religion).
plus, jihadist strikes me as more easily interpreted as an ethnic/religious slur, since jihad has some legitimate and positive attributes that regular muslims would presumably like to keep and, more importantly, is associated exclusively to islam. fascist is more of a secular term, now being applied to various authoritarian religious/political movements. its more neutral.
Wow, “islamofascist”? I wouldn’t ever try to lessen how evil these terrorists are, but — “Islamofascists?”
You know you’re doing something wrong when you’re using seriously terms coined by George Bush, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Pipes. Fascism is much more than “killing random people.” Your definition stems from the Hitchens line of “thought”: “Hey, fascism is bad and evil. Some Muslims do bad and evil things… islamo…fascism. Brilliant!”
Let’s just keep it simple. Using the term “Islamofascist” just makes you sound like an idiot. And then you dig yourself into a deeper hole by trying to qualify the already stupid term by citing the Latin derivations instead of the actual practice of the word (google ‘Islamofascism’ and see for yourself the idiots that use it).
There are so many disturbing things about this “Islamofascist” discussion. Not really sure where to begin.
Using the term “Islamofascist psychos” only fuels ignorance and its mob mentality. Really, I always thought the political discussion on here to be about progress. Base talk like this continues to project Muslims as the “Others” and worse yet, collects moderate and liberal Muslims into this ring of hate – marginalizing the biggest tool we have in actually changing these scary times.
Amardeep, you can be pissed – you wouldn’t be alone. In fact, most of the world stands with you in your anger. I’d invite you to use some of that energy and this forum/platform to effect productive change and help figure out a way to shift the political silence of the majority of moderate and liberal Muslims who could actually have the biggest politically relevant impact. To me that should be our biggest priority – not futile name-calling. It’s all much more complicated than “Islamofascist psychos.”
21 · Nayagan said
Neocons may toss it around recklessly to advance their interventionist designs but the term Islamofascism is said to have originated in Algeria by Algerians who had watched over 200,000 of their own people slaughtered by a homegrown Islamist insurgency with ostensibly fascist objectives. In any case the “fascist” connection is likely more popular in the West due to various historical and ideological connections between the Nazis and some Islamists. To take but one example, the Muslim Brotherhoods founder, Hassan al-Banna, expressed considerable admiration for the Nazis throughout his life and that legacy persisted through the likes of purist theologians like Sayyid Qutb (“the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda”) to nominal secularists like Nasser who himself had belonged to a pro-Nazi political party, Young Egypt:
“During its heyday in the 1930s the fascist Young Egypt had a youth movement name the “Green Shirts” who had some violent confrontations with the Wafd parties “blue shirts” One member even tried to assassinate Mustafa el-Nahas Pasha in November 1937. Under government pressure, the Green shirts were disbanded in 1938. The group was renamed the Nationalist Islamic Party in 1940, when it took on a more religious, as well as anti-British tone.”
Go to booksellers around Tahrir Square in Cairo today and you’ll find booksellers hawking The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf right beside scholarly Wahhabist tomes. Twaddle indeed.
And then you dig yourself into a deeper hole by trying to qualify the already stupid term by citing the Latin derivations instead of the actual practice of the word (google ‘Islamofascism’ and see for yourself the idiots that use it).
Well then, let me keep this simple in return: I don’t care who uses the word; it really has no bearing on its applicability. You’re effectively arguing that I shouldn’t use the word because it’s not fashionable on the left, so I sound like an “idiot.” No, at worst I sound like a neoconservative.
Hitchens has been wrong about many things, but he is at least right about one thing: these people (the terrorists) are not your friends, so don’t worry if someone insults them by using a politically incorrect term to describe them. Both “Jihadism” and “Islamo-fascism” refer to Islam, so it’s not like the second is more a slur than the first.
I think Katha Pollitt’s essay (which I linked to above) gets at what would be wrong with the term (if I agreed with her fully, which I don’t). That is, are we using this language to justify acts of violence we ourselves intend to commit? Are we using it to support a rhetoric of war, using the emotional example of World War II?
I’m not going to start casually throwing the term around the way they do on Fox News. I used it here as a shorthand way of expressing outrage and anger.
I don’t think India’s response should be to go and bomb Pakistan, though I do think they should absolutely ramp up the pressure on the Pakistani government to nab every LeT member they can find. They also seriously need to rethink security protocols.
Agreed. I worry about pressure part though. Every time Pakistan is caught doing something naughty* they quickly deploy army of slick-talking pols and bureaucrats on international TV. Their Indian counterparts look like mumbling fools in comparison. Spinning ain’t easy but it’s necessary.
*Not saying the current govt. of P was behind the attack.
I like your posts, Amardeep. But even the Bush’s state department stopped using that term altogether. Anyways, of all stories, the story of this child is the one that moved me most. It is just outrageous..
Nobody mentioned this, but I have to say that is the most unflattering picture of M.I.A. I have ever seen. That’s got to be a bad makeup/hair day. She’s gorgeous!
You can actually see the makeup trying to blend and failing.
Must have been done by a makeupofascist.
Language derives its meaning from usage. You may not care who uses the term, I don’t doubt that, but I do think that’s stupid when using such heavy handed phrases like “Islamofascism”.
“Islamofascism” is a term that: (a) does not really describe anything effectively (as I said earlier, somebody redefined the already vague term ‘fascism’ to mean ‘all things evil’ and then threw “Islamo” in front of it.) (b) if anything, it obscures the more complicated motivating factors that are much harder to address (maybe there are much deeper political ideologies driving them other than “the Islamic face of fascism”? Maybe there are deeper psychological motivations? Juergensmeyer’s Terror in the Mind of God points to these issues really well) (c) in contemporary times, it’s used almost exclusively by horrible, horrible, racist people to justify their horrible and racist means.
One may call someone a “ngger lover” to describe someone who loves a black person. A “ngger” stems from the Latin ‘niger.’ It is a term that describes someone, a person who loves black people. But nobody’s going to buy that BS. Words, especially inflammatory ones, derive their meanings from their usage. You’re well read and you know the baggage that the term carries. It’s your choice if you want to ignore this reality or not.
Lastly, on a more personal note, did you find using the term “Islamofascists” really as cathartic as you hoped?
yeah, blue makeup on brown skin never works. the only thing worse is a brown girl dying her hair blonde. i’v never seen anyone pull off that look.
The use of the term “Islamofascist” has just made me lose a bit of respect for Amardeep and for Sepia Mutiny as a whole. And I’m not even a religious muslim, I consider myself extremely secular, and have no problems acknowleding the problems with Islam or any other religion. However, I think it is an offensive term and it is wrong to single out any one religion as being more violent or “fascist” than any other. What about the killing of Christians in Orissa? No Muslims involved in that conflict. People who perpetrate such acts of senseless violence don’t belong to any religion, no matter what they claim to represent. The Muslim cemetary in Mumbai refused to accept the bodies of the terrorists for good reason.
Second, as a Pakistani-American, I am very disturbed by the amount of mudslinging and accusations that are going around on the desi diaspora blogs. Again, I am not an unreasonable ardent Pakistani nationalist. Once the investigation is complete, Pakistan should definately act on the results and those responsible should be brought to justice. But this tendency to attack an entire people or nation is completely counterproductive. At a time like this, we should all unite and condemn these senseless and barbaric acts of violence. If we start becoming communal and fighting amongst ourselves, we are playing into the hands of the terrorists. Causing a regional war and districting attention from the fight against militants in FATA/Afghanistan would suit the terrorists’ objectives entirely.
i wonder if the kid will get a tamil name…im guessing no
Looking back at it, I think I can clarify myself some more:
I’m not going to doubt that you used the term “Islamofascism” to express your anger. I’m not going to insist that you have malicious intentions like urging the bombing of Pakistan behind it either.
As I’ve shown, the term “islamofascism” is pretty stupid, You knew it was stupid, You used it anyway.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to be pissed at you for using a term that’s fairly offensive, carries no meaning except to be offensive, and is otherwise stupid.
You know what’s a great way to express your anger? Calling people, events, or things stupid.
37 · Kabir Altaf said
Amardeep has written about hindu fascism.
In reply to Manju, I realize that Amardeep does attack other, non-Islamic forms of “fascism” as well. Just in the context of this post, the term “Islamo-fascist” itself unfairly singles out one particular religon. as noname says in the comment directly above, the terms “is fairly offensive and carries no meaning except to be offensive”, which is a pretty strong argument against using it. Just my two-cents.
(a) does not really describe anything effectively (as I said earlier, somebody redefined the already vague term ‘fascism’ to mean ‘all things evil’ and then threw “Islamo” in front of it.)
Not true. There are specific parallels that justify the use of the term. Let me quote Hitchens again:
The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Gen. Francisco Franco’s sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression — especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance” — and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.
You can say, well, I don’t care, it’s Christopher Hitchens. But everything he’s alluding to here is pretty well documented in the rhetoric of Al Qaeda.
(b) if anything, it obscures the more complicated motivating factors that are much harder to address (maybe there are much deeper political ideologies driving them other than “the Islamic face of fascism”? Maybe there are deeper psychological motivations? Juergensmeyer’s Terror in the Mind of God points to these issues really well)
The Nazis had psychological motivations for their brutality too. Since you’re referring to scholarly texts, let me suggest one that relates to the concept of masculinity in early (1920s) Nazi German texts, Klaus Theweleit’s “Male Fantasies” (“Mannerphantasien” in German). The obsession with masculinity in the texts he looks at is remarkably parallel to the discourse around manhood, hatred of women’s bodies, and horror at homosexuality, that we saw in the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1990s.
Just in case the Hindu nationalists here think I’m suddenly on their side, I should add that if you look at the Hindutva movement from the 1990s (as documented in films like “Pita, Puttar, Aur Dharmayuddha”/Father, Son, Holy War), you’ll see similar psycho-sexual patterns. The paragraph from Hitchens could be only slightly modified (Hindutvadis are generally not anti-Semitic), and be describing “street level” Hindutva rhetoric from that era as well.
(c) in contemporary times, it’s used almost exclusively by horrible, horrible, racist people to justify their horrible and racist means.
Again, you’re mainly arguing by context here. I still don’t care if Bill Kristol also uses the word. The only part I take seriously is the last phrase in your sentence — what material acts are we trying to justify when we use certain words?
I grant that neoconservatives use this term to justify ends I disagree with. But I refuse to grant them the monopoly on outrage over terrorism, and I hoped to use the term for a different purpose here.
Yayyy!! for record of the year nom. why not add in album of the year?? Kala was great.
this is definitely one of the greatest high/low (culure) post ever. very vanity fairish
37 · Kabir Altaf said
This seems to be a misunderstanding. Islamofascism is not a coded way of saying, “Islam is fascism,” as you and some others seem to be reading. It is meant to be descriptive of a certain political mode of Islam that shares traits with other fascist movements. To call that distinction offensive when it functions as a refinement of terms to eschew sweeping and general offensive terminology seems rather reactionary and counter-productive. I don’t understand the logic.
funny thing, when the term came into vogue i thought it was perfect, precisely b/c it was less offenseive and harder to derive islamophobia from (for the the reasons i state in 25.) so i was surprised by the backlash.
i guess what is offensive is subjective, but personally jihadist or islamist appears to link general Islam to the terrorists more than islmofascist, at least ot me. by linking this oppressive ideology to german, italian, and japanese right-wing authoritarianism, and even arguably American racism (neo-nazi/militia movements are often referred to as neo-fascist), the term “islomfascism” universalizes the phenomena of the totalitarian mind, reminding us that all cultures, no matter how otherwise civilized, are vulnerable to decending into the madness within.
the pink shirt isn’t working either. that, the blue eyeliner, and slightly lightened hair indicate she’s going for the bubbly cheerleader look. tough one for bronz, even wheatz. we do the dark sophisticated femme fatale look better. gotta go with the flow.
To Zouf (and anyone else)
I’m not misunderstanding the term and I am not a reactionary. I just feel that terms that are offensive to people of a particular religion (even liberal people) and are used to promote racism, etc, should be avoided whenever possible. They don’t serve to promote open debate or constructive dialogue. In fact people may get turned off and withdraw from the dialogue entirely. Part of me is so frustrated by the anti- Islam and anti-Pakistan commentary on the desi-diaspora blogs that I want to stop reading them. And If I (a liberal individual) feel like that, then you can imagine what others on various sides of the political spectrum might be feeling.
There’s an interesting post on the southasianidea.com, which argues that we should stand up against all terrorism regardless of which side of a national border it emanates from. It is worth reading for those who are interested in constructive debate. Anyway, I’m finished commenting on this issue as I don’t want to beat a dead horse. I just wanted to register that I was offended by the gratitutous use of this word.
kabir:
what term do u prefer?
All this hand-wringing over mot juste actually highlights a much bigger problem. The reluctance in progressive circles to honestly discuss fanaticism in Islam. Why should it be left to career shit-disturbers like Hitchens and Naipaul, or worse, the Nat. Review types? When someone like Amardeep gets so much grief for using a so-called inappropriate term, it shows how little room there is for tough questions.