Global Intifada

Many of us have often heard how “great” and “spectacular” America is, how democratic its institutions are, how wealthy it is, how it was built by great people, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. Such a narcissistic narrative has, unfortunately, become so common place that many naive people have come to accept it as divine scripture. Yet, ever so often, an event occurs that forces such myths to implode. One such myth was the war on Iraq, where the so-called moral and humanitarian justifications were almost immediately deconstructed in the aftermath of what was clearly an imperialistic venture. No weapons of mass destruction were found, no links to al-Qaeda or 9/11, nothing that could possibly be used to justify the invasion and destruction of a sovereign nation that resulted in the deaths of millions other than acquiring another strategic interest in the imperial powers’ next Great Game. However, instead of focusing on the illegality of the war itself, which was a violation of both international law and the fundamental human rights of the average Iraqi citizen, the public discourse has, unsurprisingly, shifted either to “how do we bring the troops back home” or “where do we bomb next?” The shift away from the nature of possible crimes against humanity to trivial matters results in the deconstruction of the myth that America is truly concerned about democracy, human rights, and anything else other then the preservation of its own military, political, and economic dominance in the post-Cold War world. Moreover, this hegemonic discourse on the nature of American foreign policy exposes the fundamental contradiction of the transparency of American civic culture. Another manner in which the contradictions between the myth of the American metanarrative and its reality can be exposed is by scrutinizing the dominating effect of racism within the very fabric of its political culture and nothing exemplifies how deep-seated racism is then then current 2008 elections.Beyond the rhetoric and fake promises of the candidates, the 2008 elections have brought racial issues to the forefront of political discourse due solely to the presence of an African-American male as a candidate. What is disturbing about the smear campaign launched against Barack Obama, that were honestly no different from those made against Keith Ellison when he was elected and decided to use Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an to take his oath on, is that they take conspiracy theories that are patently “absurd” and make them “mainstream”. If one were to engage in a comparative analysis of the candidates, their views, their connections to “controversial figures”, and how the media treats such issues, a clear pattern of disparate treatment unfolds. Many pundits have portrayed Obama as a “secret” Muslim (solely because he has an Arabicized name) who will suddenly allow Islamists to take over America once elected to the position of Presidenct. To reinforce this theory, they have attempted to argue that he had connections with Louis Farrakhan (again, just like the previous attacks on Keith Ellison) and that he had studied in a “maddrasseh” as a child. When such idiotic arguments were exposed, they attacked Obama’s connection to Reverend Wright who condemned America for its foreign policy and, in his view, produced the violent reaction that led to the 9/11 attacks. What is ironic in condemning Reverend Wright’s views as being “absurd” and beyond the penumbra of acceptable thought is that the same attacks against Obama are viewed as legitimate. It is “absurd” for Reverend Wright to shout “Goddamn America” for its cruel treatment of particular classes of people (such as Africans, women, native Americans, indebted farmers, Mormons), but it is entirely “acceptable” to speculate that Obama is a “secret” Muslim who will throw off his nice-guy look and don a Kufi, beard, and AK47 once he’s elected to the presidency. It is “absurd” for Reverend Wright to argue that American foreign policy is detrimental to other peoples, classes, and countries, but it is entirely “acceptable” to believe that Obama is secretly connected to a Black nationalist movement that seeks to displace whites in this country. The contradictions between “asburd” and “acceptable” discourse reveal not only the nature of power in America, but how deeply ingrained racism truly is. However, the travesty of bigotry can be exposed by what is not being said just as much as it can be exposed by what is being said. Perhaps the best manifestation of how grave this problem is the complete silence on McCain’s own “Reverend Wright”: Rod Parsely of the World Harvest Church. He has used language that is just as equally inflammatory as that of Reverend Wright. He calls upon Christians to wage war against Islam, claiming that the founding fathers themselves opposed it, on the grounds that it is a false religion. He believes that it is part of America’s “divine mission” in the world to see Islam destroyed. “The fact is that America . . . was founded, in part, with the intention in seeing this false religion destroyed.” McCain has not only referred to Parsley as being a “truly great leader, moral compass, and spiritual guide”, but has gone so far as to receive his endorsement in the presidential race.It is “absurd” for Obama to get endorsement for someone who preaches “bigotry” by shouting “God Damn America!” for its violations of international law and human rights, but it is “acceptable” for McCain to get an endorsement from a person who preaches the annihilation of an entire religious tradition? Unlike McCain, Obama did not approve of an endorsement from Wright, he wasn’t seen in videos with him after he made inflammatory remarks, shaking his hand and calling him a “great leader,” “moral compass,” or “spiritual guide.” The complete absence of criticism of McCain reveals the contradictory methods for dealing with bigotry. If you’re Black, its okay to attack. If you’re white, then you’re alright! The disparate treatment of two similarly situated candidates exposes not only the racism ingrained in most “mainstream” media outlets but also the bigotry towards Islam itself. Obama was condemned for being a “secret” Muslim, as if being a Muslim, by de-facto, was a crime against the state or humanity, as if every Muslim has an invisible connection to a hive-mind dedicated solely on destroying Western civilization, as if every Muslim was a “bodysnatcher” that was going to transform American society into a zombie-infested alien wasteland. However, Parsley’s call for the complete destruction of Islam through the state was completely ignored.What such events reveal is that there is indeed a hegemonic discourse in America, especially on Islam, and that the mainstream media caters to it. The fact that McCain accepted Parsley with open arms has not been criticized what so ever in the media, in spite of following on the heels of the Obama-Wright controversy, undoubtedly reveal that racism exists (blacks and whites treated completely differently in the media) and bigotry against Islam exists (its acceptable to preach the destruction of a religious tradition, but not to critique American foreign policy) in the uppermost echelon of American culture. Of course, such a hegemonic discourse on Islam should come to no surprise as American foreign policy requires that Islam be portrayed as either a bastardized tradition or one that is conforming to the hegemonic scheme. Since America is being compelled into this region of the world in order to contain Russian and Chinese hegemony, it must justify its military presence. When international law and human rights arguments fail, nothing beats the good ol’ “Mozlem peoples is crazy!” tactic.Here’s an interesting clip of Rod Parsely and McCain:  

Check out the following link.

Share This