All-American Americans

The home-improvement store, Lowe's, has pulled its advertising from TLC's "All-American Muslim," a reality series based on the lives of five American Muslim families from Dearborn, Mich.

Lowe's decision was prompted by the complaint of an evangelical Christian group known as the Florida Family Association, who threatened to boycott the company's products because they believed the show projected "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."

Lowe's customers are divided in their support for and against the decision, and protests have also started. Senator Ted Lieu has called the action "bigoted, shameful and un-American." 

This is a free country, one may argue. Lowe's is a private company and unless it is in breach of contract with TLC, it is entitled to making its business decisions independent of any outside influence or interference.

That would be a valid argument, except for a minor detail: Lowe's decision to withdraw its advertising from TLC's reality show is a direct response to the negative campaign against Muslim Americans by an interest group. Hence, it brings to surface a deeper debate – a debate about American liberties and consumer driven social order.   

So, what is this reality show called "All-American Muslim" about? Who are the "controversial" characters that are so out of favor with the Florida Family Association that they threaten their sense of civil liberties and traditional values?

A quick viewing of the pilot episode introduces one to the five American Muslim families. One couple deals with family drama while tying the knot, another welcomes their first baby; a third couple teaches their four children to balance religious and cultural identities, the fourth juggles an all too familiar balancing act of parenting and careers, and a fifth family features an independent and ambitious Muslim woman.

Their professions range from special education aide to respiratory therapist, federal agent, football coach and law enforcement – as diverse in their line of work as they are in the expression of their faith where hijab and low necklines make for an interesting contrast. What, one wonders, could be more representative of the American experience and less threatening to American liberties? "All-American Muslims" should really be called "All-American Americans," and the only controversy they may be accused of evoking is challenging the stereotype. 

When the producers at TLC conceived the idea of a show about American Muslims, it was likely to gain some good publicity and steady viewership, and challenging negative perceptions about a community that is openly vilified.

The five families featured in the show also aimed to discourage hate-filled rhetoric they encounter in public by allowing TV cameras into the privacy of their homes. A 2010 Gallup survey reveals that 63 percent of Americans acknowledge that they have "little" or "none at all" knowledge of Islam, and 53 percent have a "not favorable at all" view about Muslims. The FFA's complaint shows that many of us would rather continue to embrace their willful ignorance than welcome the opportunity to become better informed.

No matter how one analyses Lowe's decision, it comes out as irrational. Perhaps FFA and Lowe's should have read the 2011 Pew Research Study titled "Muslim Americans: No Sign of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism" to alleviate their fears. In the absence of solid evidence of the "Islamic agenda" that Muslims have been accused of, there can be no justification for FFA's insinuation.  

Business-wise, the decision seems unwise, and Senator Lieu speaks for many when he says, "As a consumer, I find Lowe's bigotry to be nonsensical."

When experts at Lowe's put their heads together to weigh their options, perhaps they should have done their research thoroughly.

According to the largest advertising agency in the U.S., JWT's 2007 study,  the combined annual disposable income from Muslim households in America is estimated at more than $170 billion, and for 70 percent of the respondents "brands play an important role in their purchasing decisions, compared to 55 percent for the average American." It is sad that Lowe's has chosen to embrace the bigotry purported by the FFA. Unless some steps are taken as redress, it is not hard to imagine where that disposable income will not end up.

Interest groups are at liberty to push for their agendas because this is a free country, but we have a civic responsibility to reject what damages societal harmony. To suspend rational thought and give others the power to exploit us leads to social chaos, and we inadvertently become enablers of hatred. That only makes for a fractured community, not a strong cohesive one. 

Published in Sharon Patch as  'All American Muslims' are Really All-American Americans Dec 2011

A Legacy of Hate

Op-Ed

It is time to heal ourselves now

A children’s coloring book recently published by Big Coloring Books, Inc., in St. Louis, titled,We shall never Forget - The Kids Book of Freedom has sparked much controversy of late. It claims to be a tribute to the victims of 9/11, but many are questioning its deeper agenda.

Responding to criticism, Wayne Bell, the publisher of the book, has denied it advocates anti-Muslim sentiment. He was quoted on Abc News as saying, “This book under no way… zero, zero… no way… mentions Islam or Muslims…it does not mention Islam in generalities...” He claims the book was “created with honesty, integrity, reverence, respect and does not shy away from the truth.” However, a cursory glance through the book makes one pause to consider the implications of the message it appears to advocate – albeit unintentionally, if we are to honor Wayne Bell’s words.

To begin with, the phrase ‘radical Islamic Muslim extremists’ appears ten times through the course of its 36 pages, and in one section the book claims: “These attacks will change the way America deals with and views the Islamic and Muslim people around the world…”, connecting all Muslims living in countries around the world to 9/11, and making no attempt to distinguish between the small minority engaged in promoting violence and the majority of peaceful Muslims worldwide. It might be true to say that the attacks have influenced the American foreign policy towards Muslim countries since 9/11, but the last decade has also brought to us the sad reality of how America has changed the way it deals with its own Muslim citizens, where despite assurances otherwise embedding of FBI informans pretending to be Muslim converts inside mosques are now old stories. This has been widely criticized as a counter-productive measure since it appears to treat all Muslims as part of the problem.

 On a more personal level, Americans now view their fellow countrymen with suspicion and hatred. This has alienated huge sections of the society and pitted communities against each other which should have been working to buid relationships. Similarly, institutions that should be working in collaboration with each other to defeat violent extremism end up being in collision due to lack of trust. This situation has undermined the strength of the American society and created fissures in the beautiful mosaic of ethnicities, cultures and Faiths that America has always been proud to host.

The book also makes other observations that appear to be unfounded and based on conjecture, for example, “Children, the truth is, these terrorist acts were done by freedom-hating radical Islamic Muslim extremists. These crazy people hate the American way of life because we are FREE and our society is FREE.” The simple fact of the matter is that 9/11 and later acts were not carried out by individuals who hated the American way of life, but by individuals who have used their religion as an excuse to further their personal agenda. Terrorism is all about power and control, and terrorists of all affiliations use excuses to further their agenda, and gather support from the like-minded. A simple question we can all ask ourselves is, if the supremacy of Islam is the main motivation for these self-proclaimed defenders of faith, why do they continue to kill innocent Muslim men, women and children in staggering numbers in Muslim countries?  No one can refute the fact that the 9/11 bombing was carried out by individuals who were Muslim. We know they were Muslims because they believed themselves to be, and we have to accept how a person wants to define himself,  but why are we failing to make a clear distinction between them and the mainstream Muslims?

Perhaps the American nation needs to pause for a moment and try to make sense of the cacophony of messages it receives from multiple sources, each with its own agenda, and reflect not only on the immediate impact of the sad event of 9/11, but also the long term effects of the decisions they make today that will shape the lives of their future generations. The periodic resurfacing of hateful agendas may be the price of living in a free society, as a dear friend pointed out to me, but freedom also comes with responsibility – a responsibility for everyone, but more so for those who may not be on the receiving end of this campaign of hate but who believe in upholding justice and fairness for all. It is only when the silent majority stands up to deny anyone the opportunity to contribute to further disintegration of societal fabric that we will begin to heal.

The publisher’s claim, if we are to acknowledge as credible, that the book has already sold out of its first print run of 10,000 copies should be a cause of alarm for all of us. Can we hope that more parents will begin to make a conscious choice to not let anyone pass on a legacy of hate to their children? Can we, indeed, hope to leave a better world for our children based on tolerance and respectful engagement?

Let us say, “Enough!” and move on now. We owe our children a future full of hope, not regret. 

A version of this article was published in Sharon Patch as Divided, We Fall 

India - a Quest for Identity

Living in a melting pot of races, religions and cultures, the inhabitants of Northeast India continue to struggle with an identity crisis while battling decades of ethnic conflict.

Northeastern India consists of the seven sister states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura, and parts of North Bengal. This is a very diverse region and has strong ethnic and cultural ties with Southeast and East Asia while it is officially a part of India since 1947. These states constitute a special category which is officially recognized by the Indian government. The major religions practiced here include Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.  

Northeast India has seen a steady flow of immigrants throughout history, which accounts for its ethnic, linguistic cultural and religious diversity. Linguistically, the Bengali and Assamese speakers have been the most in numbers, as Subir Bhaumik pointed out in Ethnicity, Ideology and Religion: Separatist Movements in India’s Northeast, and the statistics regarding linguistic majority have been influenced by political affiliations e.g. in Assam, the migrant Muslims of Bengali origin registered as Assamese speakers between 1947 and 1982 to become part of the larger community, but after the 1983 riots, many of these Muslims began to register as Bengali speakers, changing the statistics about the number of Assamese speakers in the 1991 and 2001 Census.

There are three main groups inhabiting the Northeastern region which have been at odds with each other: the Assamese, the Bengalis and the tribal communities. Historically, wave after wave of migration towards the region was directed from the Eastern Asian countries like Tibet, Burma and Thailand, and the 1947 Partition led to increase of Bengali Hindu and Muslim refugees. As happens with demographic change and tipping of ethnic balance in any region when also accelerated by political maneuvering, a feeling of discrimination and deprivation slowly established itself and hatt has led to a constant sparking of ethnic violence for decades, uprooting families and claiming lives.

This sense of discrimination has been aggravated to a level that the resulting agitation has led to accusations of changed political loyalties of the Assamese towards the Indian government. This attitude of distrust has sustained in the minds of some politicians and policy makers and has prevented implementation of policies for social uplifting and effective conflict management. The fact that is conveniently ignored by politicians is that the historical differences and resulting conflict actually originate from the Colonial era discriminatory treatment of Assamese, and has continued due to mismanagement by the government and exploitation by political leaders.  

Several reasons are acknowledged by economists and policy makers to be the cause of conflict in this region. One of them is the region’s geographical location as a poorly integrated remote corner of the country. Assam is landlocked by Bangladesh, Bhutan and Tibet and is joined by a narrow corridor with India through Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal. Some blame successive economic and political policies of the Indian government relying on use of force to suppress conflict rather than to manage and understanding it, and sometimes even just focusing on temporary political gains.  Dr. Shakuntala Bora of Gauhati University finds in the course of her research that the reasons for the identity crisis of the ethnic groups in Assam include their awareness of being different from the majority group, a sense of being discriminated against and a strong desire for a significant share in political power – all of which are legitimate concerns for self-assertion.  Dov Ronen, who has been affiliated with Harvard University’s Centre for International Affairs, also suggests that ethnic nationalism is just an expression of self determination and, “ethnicity is politicized into the ethnic factor when an ethnic group is in conflict with the political elite over such issues as the use of limited resources or the allocation of benefits.”

The Northeasterners also suffer discrimination due to their physical appearance. Racially, they are considered to be closer to Southeast Asia, and have trouble fitting in and being accepted by the larger Indian population. The discrimination has resulted in a steady increase over the years in trafficking of, and sexual violence against, women which is seen, based to a 2011 study of North-East Support Center and helpline (NESCH), by Madhu Chandra as “a reflection of India's caste practices and social system as majority of North-East Indians come from Scheduled Castes and Tribes and ethnically Mongoloid race, which falls out of caste hierarchy.” Though the Indian constitution protects right of minorities, practically, there has been little protection from hate crimes and exploitation for the Northeasterners even in the capital, Delhi. Northeasterners working or studying in Delhi have complained of having little support from the police or legal system. Hence, it is seen that most of the cases go unreported. Even when reported, however, they are often denied FIRs or their cases are delayed by the police and courts. According to the NESCH, of the cases studied less than half were taken up by police, out of which only 1% actually made it to court. Derogatory terms are also in common usage for referring to Northeastern men and women. To add to their misery, Northeast Indians face identity crisis not only in their own country, but due to their East Asian looks but Indian passports, they are also meted out the same treatment when they travel to adjoining Bhutan, Nepal, China and Myanmar. This discriminatory behavior often fuels anger and sense of deprivation among the inhabitants of this region and contributes to socio-political unrest and communal violence. It is no wonder that the Northeast has been India’s most insurgency affected region.

A crisis in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies may result from suppression or exploitation of any group. To prevent it from blowing into a full-fledged conflict, we need policies that prevent polarization and encourage integration. Politicization of ethnicity which turns it into ethnic conflict has to stop. Without effective solution, or continuance of discriminatory policies, the situation only leads to insurgency and militancy as observed in Northeast India for the last many decades.

 Published : SouthAsia Magazine, as India: A Quest for Identity Dec, 2011 

Behind the Veil

Excerpt:



Her mind drifted to the morning’s events…

“Isn’t it hot in here?” Iraj had commented pointedly looking at her headscarf, as she twisted her own hair into an elegant chignon.

“Mmm...I think the air conditioning is functioning perfectly as usual.” She had replied coolly, sorting out the reference material that had arrived the same day.

“Don’t know how you can stand it, Maheen…I’d suffocate!” Jane joined in, in her usual straight-to-the-point manner.

“You don’t have to wear it if that’s how you feel.” She had replied casually.

“What’s your hair like these days, Mahi? Straight, curly, black, blonde… er…long, short…do you have hair at all?” Jane remarked curiously, drumming her delicate fingers on the table.

“Haven’t you two got any work to do today?” Ted Miller, her boss, commented lightly as he passed by.

Iraj made a face at his receding back and they burst out laughting before moving off to their sections.

Maheen was grateful for the intervention. He was a real dear, old Ted...sure valued hardwork and hard-workers.



Read more...in a little while!

A Local Oasis in a World of Religious Strife

Opinion

Religious differences are generally acknowledged to be a major cause of social conflict in many societies and a serious contemporary issue plaguing relations among nations.

The concepts of religious toleration and liberty, despite being much talked about entities, are also found sadly lacking when many proponents of freedom and equality are invited to walk the talk. Yet, every now and then one is rendered pleasantly surprised.

A diverse mix of faiths resides in the small picturesque town of Sharon. One evening, while taking a stroll down the street, I passed by a synagogue. A banner displayed outside announced the celebration of 70 years since its founding. There was light music coming from inside, pleasant and non-intrusive, while a large number of cars parked outside bore witness to plentiful attendance. Having recently moved to the country, I began to wonder about the religious freedom extended to other faiths represented there. In a land criticized for persecution of its Muslim inhabitants since Sept. 11, the thought seemed to provoke a skeptical response.

However, a week later while attending a social gathering just a mile away, I stood corrected on more scores than one. A large number of Muslims, mostly of Pakistani origin, had gathered for a celebration. It was a pleasant affair. Men sat comfortably on one side, engrossed in discussions about gas prices and aspirations of their newly graduated offspring, while women and young girls dressed in bright traditional wear sat in the main hall around tables, chatting away or fretting over the rows of food which, as I was to appreciate later, had been cooked by the host and his friends – a huge step away from their traditional role! – in the kitchen next to the main hall. The hall overlooked a swimming pool, a basket ball court, and a school. I was also informed that a private organization called Interfaith Action Inc. coordinates with Muslims and peoples of other faiths in town to facilitate better understanding.

As I watched the scene of perfect social harmony, I became aware of a glaring inconsistency – the presence of non-Muslims. Inside the mosque. That’s right. The venue for the interfaith gathering was the central place of prayer for the followers of the Islamic faith, in the heart of the town. It was a place of not just religious assembly, but of social gathering for the whole family too – something entirely unheard-of back home. As I stood there marveling at the scene before me, the muezzin announced the call for prayer. Men and women formed neat rows to bow before their God while non-Muslim guests looked on curiously, sharing a quiet moment.

A quick flash of memory; another time, another place. Inside the Islamic Republic. A mosque – a place where the entry of a non-Muslim could invite serious consequences in some parts of the country; a place where a regular mosque-goer, for his dedication to his faith, might end up a statistic on the floor of a mosque in yet another suicide attack by a fellow Muslim. Perplexing thoughts. Why are non-Muslims discouraged from interacting with Muslims when blessings of interfaith harmony need to be propagated to improve the delicate global balance? Why is so much blood spilled in the name of a God believed to be ‘the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful’?

It is perhaps only reasonable to conclude that religious differences do not necessarily form the basis for social conflict. It is the culture of intolerance and injustice that breeds hatred and violence. In societies that uphold social justice and religious freedom as a basic human right, religious differences can actually become a source of stability and provide successful multicultural and multi-religious social models for others to follow.

For many, it is clearly time for some serious introspection – but this small town certainly seems to have its priorities in order.

Published Sept 30, 2009 in The Patriot Ledger