America has a Nativism problem, not a “Muslim Problem”

Posted on by

Does America Have a Muslim Problem?

…Islamophobia in the U.S. doesn’t approach levels seen in other countries where Muslims are in a minority. But to be a Muslim in America now is to endure slings and arrows against your faith — not just in the schoolyard and the office but also outside your place of worship and in the public square, where some of the country’s most powerful mainstream religious and political leaders unthinkingly (or worse, deliberately) conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery. In France and Britain, politicians from fringe parties say appalling things about Muslims, but there’s no one in Europe of the stature of a former House Speaker who would, as Newt Gingrich did, equate Islam with Nazism. [Time]

<

p>My answer to Bobby Ghosh, the author of Time’s cover story, is “no.” America, despite all the ugly rhetoric of the past several weeks, is not Islamaphobic. Instead, I would say that America is currently in the grips of yet another episode of ugly Nativism, this particular episode fueled by power hungry ideologues that have access to methods of mass communication not present during former episodes of Nativism in our country: the 24 hour media cycle and the internet. “Islamaphobia” is not what afflicts our nation. It is merely a symptom of the underlying malady which, like chronic malaria, can flair up and leave the collective “us,” the American people, weak until treated. It will never be totally eradicated. Treating the problem by adopting an “enlightened” us vs.”ignorant” them mentality will make things worse, as will appeasement (see examples of the latter here, here, and here).

Before continuing the discussion it is important to understand what “Nativism” is in the context of American history. History has always been my favorite subject because historians are like fortune tellers. Everything that has happened will likely happen again. Let’s start with the most basic place to learn about the history of Nativism in our country. You guessed it, Wikipedia:

Nativism favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants. It may also include the re-establishment or perpetuation of such individuals or their culture.

Nativism typically means opposition to immigration or efforts to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups because the groups are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture, and it is assumed that they cannot be assimilated. [Wikipedia]

<

p>The table of contents on the Wiki page alone tells you the story:

* 1.1.1 Anti-Catholic nativism in the 19th century
* 1.1.2 Anti-German nativism
* 1.1.3 Anti-Chinese nativism
* 1.1.4 Anti-Catholic nativism
* 1.1.5 20th- and 21st-century anti-immigration movements
* 1.1.6 Language… [Wikipedia]

<

p>

Throughout American history, established inhabitants have been manipulated whenever ideologues or politicians decide to use fear of the “other” to win power or wealth for themselves. It was bad enough when it was just ideologues and politicians creating mischief. To that add the modern media, which perpetuates and amplifies the mischief to make money by attracting viewers/readers.

The current target of Nativist anger in our country includes Muslims and Mexicans as its largest subsets. The target this time around is an umbrella group that I will call the “Global American.” The Global American “thinks he/she is better” than the “established” American. The Global American has traveled often outside of America, and having seen the struggle abroad has some misguided empathy for those that may want to come here for work, even if they may have illegally cut in line to do so. Even when English is the second language for the Global American, he/she can spell in English better that the established American. The Global America, like President Obama, read Fareed Zakaria’s Post-American World and belives America is in decline. The Global American is a Manchurian Candidate, just waiting to turn on any established American that hasn’t stockpiled five guns. The Global American is making money in America and then funneling it off to fund the United Nations so it can establish a world order with America in its proper place.

Think I’m off the mark and that it really is only Muslims and Mexicans that need to worry? Well, let’s take a look at another headline that may have gone unnoticed this week while everyone was concentrating on the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

As Russians Move In and Flourish, Resentment Follows

Staten Island’s Russians — even if many are really from Ukraine or other lands of the former Soviet Union — number 22,288 by the most recent census estimates, or more than 50,000 by their own estimates, which would make Russians one-tenth of the island’s population. As immigrant strivers, they moved to Staten Island for the affordable houses, good schools, suburban feel and pace, even a boardwalk in South Beach that can match Brighton Beach’s in length, if not in ambience.

But they have not escaped the ethnic encounters often associated with urban migrations, including grumbling by natives that the newcomers are taking over. This has surfaced most vividly as a result of a Russian-run community and day care center’s plan for a new 10,000-square-foot building that it promises would be for all Staten Islanders.

It will become another “Russian thing,” one skeptic, Joanne Bennetti, a 60-ish retired beautician, said at a meeting of the South Beach Civic Association. “You don’t know what it’s like to feel like a foreigner in your own neighborhood.” [NYTimes]

<

p>Ahhh, I can see it now. Some blowhard on Faux News will make reference to the recently busted spy ring and then ask the question, a rhetorical one naturally: do we really want these Russians/Ukrainians (what’s the difference again?) who have recently spied on us and helped the Iranians go nuclear, settle so close to…lower Manhattan?

<

p>Meanwhile, also in New York, the Global American was busy doing their global thing:

When Maureen Mazumder enrolled her daughter, Sabrina, in a Spanish singalong class a year ago, she hoped it would be the first step in helping her learn a second language. But the class did not seem to do the trick, so Ms. Mazumder decided to hire a baby sitter, one who would not only care for her daughter but also speak to her exclusively in Spanish.

Ms. Mazumder, whose daughter is nearly 3, has company. Although a majority of parents seeking caretakers for their children still seek ones who will speak to their children in English, popular parenting blogs and Web sites indicate that a noticeable number of New York City parents are looking for baby sitters and nannies to help their children learn a second language, one they may not speak themselves.[NYTimes]

<

p>I am plain afraid of what will happen when the Nativists realize that the Hindu members of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association are trying to make the Gita, “the Hindu Bible” a standard in all their hotels.

<

p>In no way am I trying to say that Muslims should not be both concerned and saddened by what is happening right now. On the contrary, I am saying that none of us non-Muslims should for a second believe that we will be spared or that we need not concern ourselves because we are not the immediate targets of this ugly behavior by some politicians and media organizations. This isn’t just the Muslim and Latino community’s problem. This is the Global American’s problem too. Shit, some are even going after Christiane Amanpour!:

Without having the courage to do so explicitly, [Tom] Shales links (and even bolsters) charges of her “anti-Israel” bias to the fact that her father is Iranian and she grew up in Iran. He sandwiches that biographical information about Iran in between describing accusations against her of bias against Israel and her defensive insistence that she’s capable of objectivity when reporting on the region.

So here we finally have a prominent journalist with a half-Persian background — in an extremely homogenized media culture which steadfastly excludes from Middle Eastern coverage voices from that region — and her national origin is immediately cited as a means of questioning her journalistic objectivity and even opposing her as a choice to host This Week (can someone from Iran with an Iranian father possibly be objective???). Could the double standard here be any more obvious or unpleasant?… [Salon]

<

p>Very similar to how Mike Huckabee went after President Obama:

“His worldview is dramatically different than any president, Republican or Democrat, we’ve had,” said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, who attributes conservative fear not just to Obama’s effort to expand the federal government but to the president’s overall governing philosophy.

“He grew up more as a globalist than an American,” Huckabee said. “To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.” [Politico]

<

p>Enough talk about the present for a minute. How about some images from our nation’s past? Here are some political cartoons that will hopefully give American Muslims a little bit of comfort in knowing that they are not alone. Previous Americans, including the ancestors of some of the ones behaving so badly now, have faced similar:

<

p>

May 8, 1875

This cartoon is one of Thomas Nast’s most famous. It depicts Roman Catholic clergy as crocodiles invading America’s shore to devour the nation’s schoolchildren–white, black, American Indian, and Chinese. (The white children are prominent in front, the rest are in the background.) The public school building stands as a fortress against the threat of theocracy, but it has been bombarded and flies Old Glory upside down to signal distress. [Link]

<

p>I love the political cartoon above because it captures so many biases and contradictions at once. At the time, America had a “Catholic Problem.” Seeing the clergy-gators come out of the dirty Ganges River implies that Americans did not think too highly of India either. What is equally striking is that the public schools in 1875 were apparently regarded as bastions of secularism. Today, public schools are under assault in places like Kansas and Texas for not beging Christian enough.

<

p>Here is another anti-Catholic cartoon where the message is clear and ominous:

“The Shadow in Our Schools” (1890)

At the time of the great wave of immigration from the Catholic countries of Europe, there was an ongoing undercurrent of resentment about the “Romanization” of the public school system. Elsewhere on this site we have “Puck” and “Judge” cartoons with a more mainstream (i.e. Protestant) view on the subject, but the truth is that in their views on the Pope they weren’t much different than the Atheists, [Link]

<

p>

<

p>The website where I found the above cartoon is full of all sorts of anti-immigrant gems. I highly recommend visiting it.

<

p>Here is a cartoon which shows a fear of both white Irish and Chinese-American immigrants at once:

“The Great Fear of the Period That Uncle Sam May Be Swallowed By Foreigners, Problem Solved” c. 1865

This is a one panel, three scene cartoon showing, in the first scene, an Irish man with the head of Uncle Sam in his mouth and a Chinese man with the feet of Uncle Sam in his mouth. In the second scene they consume Uncle Sam, and in the third the Chinese man consumes the Irish man; on the landscape in the distant background are many railroads. [Link]

<

p>So what am I advocating? Under no circumstances should we battle the invective we have been seeing with mere contempt or an air of superiority. Americans aren’t bad. Turning inward would be disastrous. Polls saying Americans are anti-Muslim don’t mean as much given what else the polls say. However, the individuals that manipulate the public, and the media that assists in that manipulation, are bad. They should be fought with logic and reason and their hypocrisy should be laid bare. Call out bullshit whenever and wherever you see it. And don’t appease ideologues. It is much better to improve the discourse like NJ’s Republican Governor Chris Christie did then to fold like Ami Berra. In the coming years gays and abortion will be on the outs as wedge issues. Nativism will be in:

But the current tribalistic turn on the right — declaring, in essence, that the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to Muslims, and the Fourteenth Amendment shouldn’t apply to Latinos — has real promise as the next long chapter in the culture war. There will always be people who have different skin colors, different religious creeds, and the gall to believe they can be Americans too, for the right to get mad at. [Politico]

<

p>A reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog at The Atlantic sent him a note that I believe perfectly captures how Muslims will eventually triumph in the same way that Catholics, the Irish and the Chinese all did:

My husband became a US citizen on July 23rd. I couldn’t be more proud and thankful that he has chosen to be an American. I just get the feeling that so much of the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is due to lack of experience and engagement with Muslims. Everywhere we have lived in this country, whether through chance meetings or through his business, my husband has left a positive impression of Muslims with our customers and new friends. This level of engagement is vital to changing perceptions, including the perceptions of some of my own family members. Of all our customers (he has a moving company), it is military men and women who are the most open, accepting, and excited to talk to a Pashtun American. [Link]

100 thoughts on “America has a Nativism problem, not a “Muslim Problem””

  1. Nativism is what you have in every country, I would still say it’s less in the US than in Europe. Remember that in some places in Europe there has been literal infringements on the freedom to practice a specific religion.

    US struggles with nativism, but in the rest of the world it is considered natural.

  2. Isn’t this just xenophobia? The fear of the other? I think throughout American history there has always been the attitude that the new immigrants are somehow going to change the country. I think Americans fear the Latinos more than the Muslims because the Latinos are a larger number of people. Americans do stereotype Muslims though and this is a problem. The Muslim controversy isn’t just an issue in the USA though, in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands there is a lot of controversy about Muslims. In Canada, right now people are upset about Tamil migrants. I think the prejudice is just about new immigrants moving to a country and then they are stereotyped. However, over time the new immigrants assimilate into the country and then people pick on a new group of immigrants.

  3. Abhi,

    Has there been any correlation between economic insecurity and the flare-ups of nativism in the past? While the role of ideologues taking advantage of the 24-hour news cycle and the internet can’t be denied, I wonder if feelings of insecurity about their economic future aren’t leading many (middle- and lower middle-class) Americans to try to find someone else (Muslims and Mexicans) to blame and demonize for their woes. Mind you, I’m not suggesting that this is necessarily a rational or conscious decision on their part; merely that it might be one of the reasons why nativism as an idea is currently finding so much traction.

  4. I agree completely, the US is far less islamophobic than most other countries with a muslim minority. It does seem to me that Time covers like this are overly sensationalist, and only serve to polarize and perpetuate the debate. I’m all for free speech, but this is another striking example of irresponsible, provocative journalism.

    ‘slings and arrows in the schoolyard’? No, I think that’s taking it way too far. Kids get picked on for a multitude of reasons, and that comment makes it seem like there’s some sort of campaign to actively persecute. I’ve ‘guest lectured’ at a few rural public elementary schools (with kids, and teachers, who for the most part rarely see non-white people) and found the kids and teachers completely receptive to other cultures and free from overt religious prejudice. They were too ignorant (no condescension there: poor, rural, I’d be ignorant too) to hold preconceived notions, positive or negative. And on the other end of the spectrum, ROTC students (who will most likely end up in Afghanistan or Iraq), showed a level of cultural sensitivity and sophistication that I found quite surprising. I think it may be a part of their military training. And correct me if I’m wrong, but based on my limited experience, I believe for the most part, that schools and universities take pains to accommodate their religious (or other) minority students. Television is great too, ads are so much more inclusive in who they target, and what kid doesn’t love Dora and Ni hao Kai-lan?

    I would tend to agree with the above commenters. Although the United States does have a nativism problem, its immigration policies have ensured that its nativism is always in flux, and picks a new enemy each time. Which, I suppose, given our innate tendency towards it, is probably the best outcome we can expect. I love the cartoons, they’re absolutely priceless!

  5. I don’t really care whether or not its built, but I wonder how Indians would react if Muslims decided to build a mosque in close proximity to the Bombay train station which had the 7-11 attacks.

  6. My point was basically that it is to expect the impossible of americans if you say that america has a nativist problem. That is merely a human phenomena. But while USA struggles with nativism, it is the norm in Japan, in China, in India, in Europe,in the Arab World etc. There is never a question about Germany not being a white christian country or Italy being a white catholic country, that will never be contested. While USA struggles to incorporate foreigners in to the country, in Europe they struggle to keep Europe European. The recent controversy around the article about Edison, New Jersey serves as a perfect example, that would in Europe officially be considered a problem. EU won’t even let Turkey in to their Union on the basis that it is not a chistian country.

  7. CMF

    Shiv Sena could probably whip up some political sentiments about it, my guess is that the reaction would be similar to that in the US but with more demonstrations. But the mosque would be built.

  8. CMF, you’re not really serious, are you? Indians are 12% Muslim, and at least 80% (unscientific as hell, but we’ve had centuries of practice) pluralist, so I think overall, we’d react quite favorably to, say, for the sake of argument, the building of a hypothetical mosque near the CST station called, say, the Jama Masjid or some such.

    ronnieboy, I think you’re being alarmist. Through most of human history, royalty has always had an associated priesthood/clergy. Separation of church and state is a very recent idea. And yet, George Bush tried to claim he had divine support, in a secular nation! Religious doctrines say a lot, but attacking a religion outright can polarize even its moderates who may care very little about those doctrines. By not allowing the mosque to be built, you’re folding to the extremists on one side, which will further provoke extremists on the other side. But more importantly, the building of the mosque cannot be stopped by any legal means, so this whole debate is irrelevant and only serves to rile up extremists. Stop being such a willing pawn.

  10. Abhi, Has there been any correlation between economic insecurity and the flare-ups of nativism in the past?

    Almost always

  11. Thanks for another great post, Abhi. I have no doubt in my mind that this current flare-up on nativism is rooted both the crummy economy and, what you didn’t mention, shifting demographics–in the coming decades, “white” Americans will cease being more than 50% of the population, and that scares (many of) them.

    I disagree with what you’re advocating, though: “Under no circumstances should we battle the invective we have been seeing with mere contempt or an air of superiority.”

    These cynical hatemongers like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin need to be called out for what they are–stupid unAmerican troublemakers. You can’t reason with them–they know exactly what they are doing and no facts or truth are going to change their minds. They need to be discredited and vilified and unfortunately, Democrats like Harry Reid and Howard Dean and Ummmmbama can’t be counted on to do it. Cheers to the likes of Bloomberg and Christie and Zakaria.

    We need to be more willing to say “Shut up, you’re stupid.” Seriously. (That goes out to you, ronnieboy.)

  12. Harbeer, Did you catch this part?

    However, the individuals that manipulate the public, and the media that assists in that manipulation, are bad. They should be fought with logic and reason and their hypocrisy should be laid bare. Call out bullshit whenever and wherever you see it. And don’t appease ideologues. It is much better to improve the discourse like NJ’s Republican Governor Chris Christie did then to fold like Ami Berra.

    .

  13. excellent article abhi. only one quibble. i think every nation should be angry with illegal immigrants. they should try their best to stop it. and anything illegals do after entering the country should be treated differently. just like you do treat a criminal. i think giving the kids of illegals a citizenship (a huge favor/benefit) is not right. there are scores of illegals who come in while pregnant just so they can give birth to an american citizen. this 14th amendment should be seriously questioned.

  14. I guess I did, Abhi. I might flip the emphasis in that paragraph. Lead with “guns blazing,” then temper it with some “we’re all in this together, we’re going to sink or swim together” kind of humble posturing. I’m pretty angry at the tack I see my country taking these days, and I think a lot of it has to do with “the good guys” playing nice with an “adversary” that has no scruples whatsoever.

    As Roosevelt (and my martial arts teacher) once said, “Don’t hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.”

  15. I don’t know–my family has a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment in it, and it’s not rooted in American Nativism, but, they would say, centuries of abuse at the hands of South Asian Muslims. . . . Can we entirely rule out that Muslims might be a problem? I see how you would think my family bigoted, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. . . .

  16. Can we entirely rule out that Muslims might be a problem?

    Sigh. Did you look at the cartoons above? We can rule out that Muslims as a group “might be a problem” in the same way we can rule out that Hindus or Catholics as a group might be a problem. In America we should each do our best to loosen the grip on all the ill baggage that our relatives or acquaintances hold on to, whether they have arrived from South Asian or any where else.

  17. Has there been any correlation between economic insecurity and the flare-ups of nativism in the past?

    if you’re genuinely interested in that question, the argument is laid out in this book: The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.

    the emphasis on a general problem, as opposed to a specific prejudice, is useful. i am wary of terms such as “islamophobia,” “anti-semitism,” and “anti-woman.” generally they’re co-opted by those with an intent to quash discussion and automatically set up the rhetorical game to their benefit.

    also, often the narrative today presents known nothings and anti-catholic activists are driven purely by atavistic fear. certainly that is true, suspicion of “popery” ran deep in the anglo-american whiggish culture. the protestant dissenters who were demographically dominant at the founding were suspicious of the “romish” ways of high church anglicanism! but there were reasons to worry about the impact of a powerful and organized catholic church on the american body politic. the narrative history can be found in john t mcgreevy’s Catholicism and American Freedom. the roman catholic church in the mid-19th church was taking a strong stand against liberalism and democracy. this caused problems for catholics who were citizens of liberal democracies, and in the USA culminated in the ‘americanist’ controversy. the early catholic church of the republic, small and dominated by french priests from quebec and old english families, was not the locus of hostility. the problem occurred when the irish took over the church, and were buttressed by waves of german migrants in the 1840s. this massive demographic swell was simultaneous with a reformation of the church, and a remodeling on a more centralized european structure. additionally, it seems clear that there was one strand within the american catholic church which wished to recreate in the USA the sort of special and explicitly demarcated role it had in some european nations where it was the representative of a substantial minority of the population.

    note: also, in the specific instances of anti-catholic prejudice there were political motivations too: the catholics in the north were a democratic party vote bank.

  18. Can we entirely rule out that Muslims might be a problem?

    well, i have a long history on the internet as being anti-muslim, but in the USA muslims are only ~1% of the population (digging into the data, this is a generous proportion). they’re also not disproportionately concentrated in the underclass, as they are in europe. they’re not ethnically unified, as they are in europe (e.g., in britain muslim = south asian, in germany muslim = turkish, etc.). many american muslims are as religiously or politically oriented as our ‘stripper pole’ miss usa. as a matter of fact i think abhi has a good case, there are too many other pointers to a generalized dynamic which muslims and mexicans are a specific instance of.

    a bigger issue which i alluded to earlier in regard to muslims specifically is that the american republic and body politic is focused on particular geopolitical stances which american muslims and arabs (even conservative republican arab christian republican darrell issa deviates from the national norm on mid-east questions) are going to disagree with. this isn’t a matter of “right” or “wrong.” geopolitical issues with historical baggage are complicated. feisal abdul rauf expressed views on geopolitical issues which are totally innocuous even in the non-muslim nations outside of the USA.

  19. also, one last comment. as i admitted in the previous thread i think the cultural center a few blocks from ground zero is now such a circus that the planners should just back out (there are already hints that they’ll have problems funding it now, so it might be done as a de facto matter in the long term). i’m also not a big fan of islam as a religion, though i’m suspicious of religion as a whole it’s at the bottom of my stack excluding really bizarre cults like scientology. that being said, the man behind the cultural center, feisal abdul rauf. i saw his book in the early 2000s. i didn’t read it cuz i’m not the audience, but i did see a review in slate magazine by the neoconservative journalist for the weekly standard, lee smith:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2101698

    here’s a bit: “What’s Right With Islam is an important and often intellectually exciting book that describes Islam as an extension of the Judeo-Christian heritage. The three monotheistic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—constitute “the Abrahamic tradition,” whose core principle is in the second commandment: “To love our neighbors,” Abdul Rauf writes, “our fellow human beings, regardless of race, religion, or cultural background, as we love ourselves.” Hence, there are no essential differences between the three monotheisms. Indeed, Abdul Rauf writes, “the Quran confirms the truths revealed in all the scriptures.””

    so i really had to figure out if this was the same feisal abdul rauf i had vaguely been aware of. in the early 2000s he was one of the “good guys” even in the neocon firmament.

  20. I don’t know. Muslims brought down the Twin Towers. Another attack could kill more and disrupt the economy. It’s just like it was back in the old country. . . . I’m not believing that it’s not a problem. Sorry. What about Partition? There was a lot of killing then along religious lines. I don’t believe in mindless bigotry, but let’s not be ostriches.

  21. I think America has always been this way. They hated the Italians, Irish,..everybody. It’s just that it is the turn of Muslims and brown people. But once you’re in, you are golden as long as you continue behave yourself. Think of it as a hazing ritual.

  22. I don’t know. Muslims brought down the Twin Towers. Another attack could kill more and disrupt the economy. It’s just like it was back in the old country. . . . I’m not believing that it’s not a problem. Sorry. What about Partition? There was a lot of killing then along religious lines. I don’t believe in mindless bigotry, but let’s not be ostriches.

    think realistically. muslims are ~1% of the american population. if there is killing “along religious lines” who do you think has a lot to fear? this isn’t rocket science. the best way to combat politically correct nonsense is to be grounded in reality, and make wild analogies and ideologically driven suppositions.

  23. “Hindu”, Any more ugly generalization will result immediate banning from this site. One warning only. And please don’t use the handle “Hindu” any more. Thanks.

  24. Razib, I have already read Ben Friedman’s book. While I am inclined to support his thesis (as might be obvious from my previous comment), I am not entirely convinced by his arguments. Take the “Roaring Twenties” for example: while the growing economy then can certainly be correlated with more tolerant attitudes towards Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and gays, particularly in urban areas, the 20’s were also the period when the KKK (more accurately, the second Klan) was at its height. And then, of course, there’s modern China — which has shown impressive economic growth, but remains quite xenophobic and nativist. Now, one could argue that there are sociopolitical and socioeconomic reasons for these exceptions, but Friedman does not go into them in any extensive detail.

  25. shaad, the lack of good cliometrics is a deficit. re: “roaring twenties,” but there were some sharp recessions early the decade going by memory. re: modern china, do you think it’s more, not less, xenophobic? my experience/understanding of chinese today is that they’re xenophobic/racist to some extent (at least from an american perspective), but it’s not a big change from the maoist period. is it?

    in any case, i think societies closer to ricardo’s ‘stationary state’ are going to be more closed, period. zero-sum realities are not conducive to between group amity.

  26. speaking of zero-sum, http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/west/PDF-media/NewScientist_May09.pdf

    Last year Karla Hoff, an economist at the World Bank who is currently working at Princeton University, and her colleagues reported the results of experiments conducted in villages in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (American Economic Review, vol 98, p 494). In these tests, two players started out with 50 rupees each. The first could choose to give his to the second, in which case the experimenters added a further 100 rupees, giving the second player 200 rupees in total. The second player could decide to keep the money for himself, or share it equally with the first player. A third player then entered the game, who could punish the second player – for each 2 rupees he was willing to spend, the second player was docked 10 rupees.

    The results were startling. Even when the second player shared the money fairly, two-thirds of the time the newcomer decided to punish him anyway – a spiteful act with seemingly no altruistic payoff. “We asked one guy why,” says Hoff. “He said he thought it was fun.”

    Hoff found that high-caste players were more likely to punish their fellow gamers spitefully than low-caste players, leading her to suggest that context is everything. It is not that people in Uttar Pradesh are nastier than elsewhere, but rather that the structure of their society makes them acutely conscious of status. The sensitivity of higher castes to their position makes them tend not to support any changes that threaten to level the social hierarchy, such as development projects. But higher castes can also put others down, safe in the knowledge that “untouchables” are unlikely to strike back. “If you’re low caste it’s dangerous to rise in status,” says Hoff. “You’ll get beaten up or worse.”

    god bless america!

  27. Ah, yes, of course my dear Razib–the problem with India is caste, not Islam. How surprising you should “discover” that.

  28. “What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America” by Rauf was given a different title for non-English-speaking audiences, “A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.”

  29. “Hoff found that high-caste players were more likely to punish their fellow gamers spitefully than low-caste players, leading her to suggest that context is everything. It is not that people in Uttar Pradesh are nastier than elsewhere, but rather that the structure of their society makes them acutely conscious of status. The sensitivity of higher castes to their position makes them tend not to support any changes that threaten to level the social hierarchy, such as development projects. But higher castes can also put others down, safe in the knowledge that “untouchables” are unlikely to strike back. “If you’re low caste it’s dangerous to rise in status,” says Hoff. “You’ll get beaten up or worse.””

    What is being described here is social status. And this is true in many countries:

    “Hoff found that high-[status] players were more likely to punish their fellow gamers spitefully than low-[status] players, leading her to suggest that context is everything. It is not that people in [XYZ] are nastier than elsewhere, but rather that the structure of their society makes them acutely conscious of status. The sensitivity of higher [status] to their position makes them tend not to support any changes that threaten to level the social hierarchy, such as development projects. But higher [status] can also put others down, safe in the knowledge that [bottom of the rung status players] are unlikely to strike back. “If you’re low [status] it’s dangerous to rise in status,” says Hoff. “You’ll get beaten up or worse.””

    Caste is a Portuguese word, that originally described what was going on in their Portuguese world, and ended up mixing different things in India. Varna as described in Hinduism is not a problem because it is about the individual and it is not hereditary, it is about lumping similar jobs into one of four categories. Community (jati) in India is not a problem because part of the richness of India is the diversity of community – diverse languages, cultures, customs etc…

    What are world wide problems that should be addressed are inherited class status, and status discrimination, which is about people who are in or have achieved higher status doing things to maintain it. Everyone wants to move up in status and no one wants to move down, and times people do nasty things to maintain status.

  30. All comments that conflate this topic with India (the caste system, partition, etc.) will henceforth be deleted.

  31. It is not just whether it is Nativism and “Islamaphobia” there is another concern that is about maintaining secular democracy from those who wish to replace it. This is one document that came up in the Holy Land Trial in 2008, from US courts http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2/09-25-08/Elbarasse%20Search%203.pdf. There are those who are very serious about this destruction from within, and as a consequence people who support secular democracy are very concerned in making sure this does not happen. Freedom to believe in your religion does not mean it is okay to replace the current form of secular democratic government with a religious state that is based upon your religion. Most Americans would support religious diversity. And being anti-jihad, anti-Islamic-state-in-America, and anti-Sharia-replacing-secular-laws is not the same as being anti-Muslim. A lot of people don’t care if one calls god Allah, or pray five times, or fast for a month. But people do care about things that are described in the document. American Muslims who support secular democratic America (and I think the majority does) I think would actively NOT support anyone involved in doing what is described in the document.

  32. Classic fear-mongering on your part Sameer. It is a complete joke if you want us to believe that any more than 0.01% of the 1% of Muslims in this country want us to practice Sharia! Hell, to escape that is why most left their home countries in the first place! If you want to focus on Texas why not focus on the radical Christian groups that want Jefferson expunged from school textbooks because he was secular. I am calling bull shit on your empty argument.

  33. I think people are not talking nowadays about what is specifically troubling people, and both the left and the right lump people who have different opinions as the other. There are specifics in religious doctrine that are troubling, and an open and frank national discussion would be better than the polarization we see today . Sam Harris the author of The End of Faith, wrote for a online site “What one doesn’t generally hear from Western Muslims is any frank acknowledgment of these unpleasant truths. In response to serious concerns raised over Islamic doctrines related to jihad, martyrdom, apostasy, and blasphemy—along with their incontrovertible link to terrorism, threats of violence, cartoon “controversies,” and the like—one generally meets with petulance, feigned confusion, half-truths, and non sequiturs. Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.” My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of “bigotry” and “racism” by many “moderate” Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith.

    There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe.” http://atheistdiscussion.com/content/sam-harris-there-s-no-such-thing-islamophobia-223/

    I think most people would be fine with a Islam reformation where there is none of the troubling aspects as Harris describes.

  34. Abhi I said I believe most American Muslims support secularism, and I expect they would actively NOT support what is described in the documents. And you want us to focus on the topic so why do you now want to bring in Christian fanatics unrelated to it? My point was that there are those who are serious about replacing secular democracy, and so it is not only about Nativism or Islamophobia but also genuine concern for such groups.

  35. My point was that there are those who are serious about replacing secular democracy

    There are also those that believe in Aliens! I linked to that fact in my post. I also linked to the textbooks in Texas in my post so it is relevant.

  36. No I am not Muslim, and Abhi just accused me of fear mongering and misrepresented what I wrote.

    But I am trying to bring up this point that we need to get beyond this polarization. There are genuine concerns over specifics, just like author Sam Harris brought up. These specifics and that there are people concerned over these specifics are what gets buried under labels such as Navisit and “Islamophbia” along with everything else. I think Harris brings back the discussion away from the polarization we see. I think that is a better discussion and more healthy.

  38. But I am trying to bring up this point that we need to get beyond this polarization.

    From my perspective every comment that you have left thus far has been polarizing. So tell me, what is your strategy? You keep building strawman arguments and then ask us to join hands to fight said strawmen.

  39. There are people who are genuinely concerned about specifics in the faith and specific about groups such as in the Holy Land trial, and that the conflict that we see in America is not merely explained away by attributing it to Nativism/Islamophobia, as much as some people would like it. To me Sam Harris said it best.

  40. Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I thought the description of Global vs. Established Americans was fascinating, as this dichotomy is one my friends and I talk about all the time…us being decidedly the former. So if this problem is really Global Americans as the new group rather than just Latinos and Muslims (did I understand that correctly?) then will Global Americans simply fade into the accepted mosaic of America as have Catholics, Irish, Germans, and Chinese? It seems to me though that Global Americans exist at the expense of Established Americans, meaning that their version of America is actually exclusionary of the “Established” Americans even though Globals profess a higher degree of tolerance and acceptance. I’m sure that in the past people have spoke of the same thing happening with Catholicism, but that was from non-Catholics, and people generally opposed to Roman Catholicism. Yet as someone who would identify as a Global American it seems that our mindsets aren’t compatible with the Established, as we expect other Americans to have our level of open-mindedness. So what does the future hold for these groups then? Am I way off in my thinking?

  41. Yet as someone who would identify as a Global American it seems that our mindsets aren’t compatible with the Established, as we expect other Americans to have our level of open-mindedness. So what does the future hold for these groups then? Am I way off in my thinking?

    what do you mean “open-mindedness” specifically?

  42. @razib: I would say the Global Americans, being a more multicultural group, with a pluralistic mindset in culture, religion, and politics, are generally more accepting in the aforementioned differences than Established Americans. Or perhaps that’s just my Globalist view of Established Americans.

  43. with a pluralistic mindset in culture, religion, and politics, are generally more accepting in the aforementioned differences than Established Americans. Or perhaps that’s just my Globalist view of Established Americans.

    well…i asked because groups which are not “Real Americans/Established Americans.” basically, i think what we’re pointing to here are those who aren’t straight anglo white christians, are very diverse in their viewpoints. so, on social issues, there’s a wide range among mexican americans, black americans, gay americans, those who are irreligious, muslim americans, etc. for example, on immigration and gay rights black americans are not particularly different from anglo white christians. let’s compare two groups in the pew religious landscape survey, hindus and muslims, who despite their issues in the “homeland” are confused for each other by “Real Americans” (sorry guys, you know it’s true :-), with white evangelical protestants as a reference.

    below i’ll list a viewpoint, and then hindu, muslim and white evangelical protestant %’s affirmative….

    abortion illegal in all cases: 5 – 13 – 25 bigger gov., more services – 59 – 70 – 41 homosexuality should be discouraged by society – 37 – 61 – 64 gov should do more to protect morality – 44 – 59 – 50 religion very important in one’s life – 45 – 72 – 79 there is only ONE true way to interpret the teachings of my religion – 10 – 33 – 41 my religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life – 5 – 33 – 36 income less than $35 K – 9 – 35 – 34 four or more children – 1 – 6 – 3

    in the year 2000 the majority of muslims voted for george w. bush. at least that’s the claim, though hard numbers are difficult to come by. the bush campaign made a proactive outreach effort via grover norquist (who later married a palestinian american muslim), and even played up their opposition to racial profiling and such. there was also a strong economic argument made to the affluent immigrant muslim community (the black muslims were written off by the republicans, and ignored by the immigrant muslim organizations). obviously that’s come to naught. geopolitical contingencies and the realities of american electoral politics since 9/11 made sure of that. but my point is that perhaps one shouldn’t confuse tactical coalitions with a long term strategic confluence of values. tactical alliances can be deep, and persist for decades, but that still doesn’t mean a genuine cultural common-ground. the black american division on homosexuality is a clear case of this. they’re loyal democrats, but they simply don’t agree with the secular liberal segment of the democratic party on issues such as gay marriage because of the cultural gap.

  44. being a more multicultural group, with a pluralistic mindset in culture, religion, and politics

    oh, politics. for the groups mentioned above (hindu – muslim – evangelical protestant):

    republican + lean republican = 13 – 11 – 50 democrat + lean democrat = 63 – 63 – 34

    it looks here that “global americans” are more of a political monoculture than “established americans.” not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  45. p.s. in hindsight i probably shouldn’t have made much reference to black americans. most of their ancestors were hear before 1790, and they’re pretty monolingual, with minimal international commitments or affinities. so they aren’t global americans, though in this context i don’t think they’re established either. involuntary americans?

  46. Isn’t it obvious that a strategy for us come-lately Americans is to sign up with the anti-Muslim stuff? I mean, I don’t have anything in common race-wise with Joe Six-Pack, but both of our grand-mothers have stories about how bad the Muslims are! Seriously, why not?????!

    • It’s a tried and true assimilation strategy. Check out How the Irish became White.

      To be more serious, though, this isn’t generally a case of signing up to anti-Islamic sentiment just to assimilate. Frankly most of the world that has been exposed to Islam has a troubled and tortured history with it. So you probably won’t find many Japanese people having strong opinions on the matter, but everyone else most certainly will. Their sympathies would have aligned the same way whether they lived in America or in Japan.

  47. Razib, your ability to come up with random yet appropriate statistics/facts never ceases to amaze me

  48. andrew, i’d old. not a skill i was born with. though seriously, i’m the type of person who collects data sources, and also assembles his own personal data frames in R for later perusal.

    you’re asking real and serious questions, so please don’t get discouraged. my intent was prod you to say more. you definitely reduce the “dick quotient” when you jump in.

  50. It is deeply unfair to call Americans either nativist or Islamophobic when they have elected a Kenyan Muslim as president. However, given the multi front battle the Republicans are fighting (The Gays! The Mohammedans! The Mexicans!), the only candidate who might be able to do justice to their platform is Mel Gibson.