What's in a word: In his new executive order, has United States president Donald J. Trump proposed a "Muslim ban?"
Yesterday, the New York Times published two letters on the subject. The second letter writer didn't seem to be buying the use of that term.
He stated no definitive view on the order itself, but seemed to reject the thinking behind the use of the term:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (3/8/17): While there can be reasoned objections to President Trump’s revised executive order excluding six heavily Muslim countries from entry into the United States, the Op-Ed essay by Farhana Khera and Johnathan Smith (“Don’t Be Fooled, Trump’s New Muslim Ban Is Still Illegal,” nytimes.com, March 6) degenerates into an emotionally charged denunciation of the order as an “all-out assault on Islam and Muslims.” They lose all credibility with that indictment of Mr. Trump.Excitingly, the opinion column in question had used the exciting term, "Muslim ban." This writer stated no definitive view on the executive order itself, but he seemed to reject the use of that thrilling term.
Among the countries not included in the ban are Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. All of them are predominantly Muslim states, and Saudi Arabia in particular is an avowedly Islamic theocracy with a very strict brand of Sunni Islam at the core of its official identity. So how, pray, is President Trump’s visa ban an assault on Islam and Muslims as such?
With respect to the use of that term, we tend to agree with this writer. That could be because, as native speakers of English, we're familiar with the general meaning and application of the familiar term, "ban."
Under the terms of the new order, Muslims will be granted new visas to enter the U.S. from a long list of Muslim nations. Muslims already holding such visas will be admitted from the six nations which are principally affected by the new executive order. (Iraq is no longer affected.)
As such, we aren't sure why a person would want to refer to this as a "Muslim ban." We grant you, though, the use of the term is exciting and signals our moral greatness.
The first letter in yesterday's section stated a different view. The writer of this fiery letter explicitly supported the use of that fiery term:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (3/8/17): The Trump administration does not have a leg to stand on here. It cannot believe that the ban is truly necessary to protect the United States from a terrorist attack; otherwise it would not have delayed the announcement of the revised ban to allow positive press from the address to Congress to sit for a few days. This ban cannot be about public safety either. Study after study shows that the immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans.This writer opposes the new executive order. He's says you're crazy if you don't view it as a "Muslim ban," but he doesn't remember to explain why he holds that view.
To see this order as anything other than a Muslim ban is willful blindness. This is just another tragic example of this astonishing lack of empathy for anyone the administration believes is different.
It seems to us that we liberals need to understand the way we're seen by others. Again and again, people read letters like the second one we've posted and come away thinking we're slightly dumb.
It's also true that the second letter we've presented contains a type of shortcoming which Charlie Peters addressed in his essay this Sunday. It seems to us that its writer fails to understand and address the types of objections The Others might have, rightly or wrongly, to current travel practices.
"Study after study shows that the immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans?" Let's assume that's a valid factual claim. Does the writer understand why some of The Others may say this fact isn't hugely relevant? Has the writer tried to understand the way the world looks to someone who doesn't share his admittedly superior points of view?
At the present time, our liberal team is on the type of stampede which borders on moral rampage. We seem to take pleasure from our use of fiery tribal language.
We seem to enjoy the terms we use and the signals they send about Us and our manifest greatness. Across the country, other people think we're dumb when they see us expounding that way.
Other people roll their eyes. At this point, is it clear that they're wrong?
Solomon splits the difference: Editorially, the New York Times split the baby in half, much as Solomon would have done during an earlier era.
Without explaining their use of the term, the board described the executive order as a "Muslim Ban Lite."
We tend to agree with the newspaper's view of the new executive order. We're still looking for an explanation of the (admittedly thrilling) use of that high-minded term.
During the campaign, particularly when he was fighting off his GOP competitors, Trump threw it out that he would or might ban all Muslims from entering the country. I think it worked for him with a lot of voters. (The terrorist attacks in Europe and in Florida must have helped him a lot against Clinton). Now as president, he has backed off from that. What he is doing now is more likely to inspire a terrorist attack than prevent one. The purpose seems nothing other than to give the impression he is carrying out at least to some extent his original threat to ban all Muslims - it would be more accurate to call this a "ban of at some Muslims" than a "Muslim ban."ReplyDelete
AC/MA -- I agree with most of your comment, but not the idea that, "What he is doing now is more likely to inspire a terrorist attack..." We don't know what motivates Islamic terrorists to attack the West. I think it's mostly that we're not Islamic. Maybe they hate us because gays, women, Jews, etc. are treated as equals. In any event, I don't want my country's policies to be determined by what might or might not enrage these murderous thugs.Delete
David, as a southern white guy of jewish heritage married 17 years to an Egyptian woman of muslim heritage, my impression is that Arabs are most angry over what Zionist extremists did to the Palestinians during the creation of modern Israel. The Jews destroyed all of the Palestinian cities, towns and villages and boot kicked those left alive out of the their own country. Israel's current conservative and anti Arab leader and the US' unqualified support for Israel are main motivators for Islamic extremists.Delete
They do not hate us for our freedoms.
They hate us for our support of Israel. They hate us because we shovel money to Israel and let Arabs rot in poverty. They hate us because we impose ourselves in their countries mainly due to oil interests, while we allow Israel to have nuclear weapons and help enrich their interests.
D in C - It's a tried and true tactic of governments, authoritarian or not, to stir up the gullible citizens with imaginary or exaggerated reasons to be terrified. The travel ban and inhumanitarian refugee bans are hardly likely to prevent some sort of attack. It's public relations, and it's really low. The issue isn't sparing the feelings of murderous Islamic religious zealots, but possibly giving the zealots a recruiting tool. I think the latter is a more significant danger than allowing in refugees and citizens from the 6 countries.Delete
Silly Boy, thanks for your post. I believe you that, "They hate us because we...let Arabs rot in poverty." Apparently that's a widespread belief, but it isn't true. A Congressional Research Service report, written last December, says, "Since the establishment of limited Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the mid-1990s, the U.S. government has committed more than $5 billion in bilateral economic and non-lethal security assistance to the Palestinians, who are among the world’s largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid."Delete
The US has been by far the greatest contributor to the Palestinians, as can be seen from charts at http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000592
Here are the figures, badly formatted:
Donor Contribution (US$)
United States of America 408,751,396
European Commission 139,402,221
Saudi Arabia 103,519,499
United Kingdom 95,328,127
Japan (including JICA [Japan International Cooperation Agency]) 28,278,535
Belgium (including Flanders) 10,772,636
David, you misunderstand the aid given to the Palestinian Reservations. The US gives around $400 million per year to the West Bank and Gaza, in contrast to the $3 billion it gives Israel, and most of those funds go to defend Israel from Palestinian attacks and protests, not to aid Palestinians economically - it is in the same report you reference. In fact, pro-Israeli Republicans in the US are concerned some of the funds go to help Palestinian terrorist groups, so they are proposing we cut all aid to the Palestinians:Delete
The US does in fact let Arabs rot in poverty while it supports Israel with massive amounts of money and props up Arab dictators that are friendly to our oil companies but brutal to their own people whom they keep impoverished. Indeed if ever supposition came close to truth, it is likely that elite Republican leaders are not bothered by Islamic terrorists because they find them a useful tool to keep Americans in fear and money flowing to their buddies in the defense and homeland security businesses.
Silly Boy -- IMHO it's (some of) the Arab leaders who let Arabs rot in poverty. Why does it hurt Arabs if the US gives more money to Israel than to the West Bank? Only because the West Bank leaders decided that Israel is their enemy. With a different approach, Israel could have been a boon for the West Bank and other Arab countries. Having a modern state, with cutting edge technology, medicine, etc. nearby could have helped these countries to moderninze themselves, via cooperative education programs, joint manufacturing, etc. But, some Arab leaders don't want friendship with Israel and don't want modernization.Delete
Reminds me of the old joke:Delete
Q. What's the difference between Israel and Nazi Germany?
D in C. Humans are not rational creatures, especially when they feel threatened.Delete
Jonny, you put it better than I didReplyDelete
I agree and "my Mexican girlfriend" will pay for the wall... to keep herself in Mexico.ReplyDelete
The main effect of the new EO is to reduce the number of Syrian refugees from 110,000 to 55,000. That means 55,000 Syrian refugees are being banned. They are primarily Muslims. You can call this whatever you want but real people are being affected by this EO while Somerby plays his word games with the NY Times.ReplyDelete
Real people had their lives affected (for the worse) by George W. Bush's "Great Iraq Clusterfuck". Now the people that rooted on the USA's worst foreign policy disaster of the last 100 years, want to kick those same people while they're down. Also, bonus points for whining about "government waste" and "the debt" after Georgie spent $3 Trillion to do so.Delete
Why the fuck would anyone ever listen to these mouth-breathers?
You can argue about why radical Islamists exist and no doubt some exist because of the Iraq war. The point is to keep them out of our country.Delete
And that's called bigotry because you are judging them as members of a group and not individuals.Delete
You're judging reality about a group of people who come from countries in which the vast majority holds beliefs about violence against infidels, gays, and others. We do not want these people in our country. We also do not want a large population of people who approve of Islamic law in government. We should require immigrants from these societies to prove they are exceptions to the dominant belief systems about violence and government in their country.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
If the point is to keep out people from areas where the majority holds beliefs about violence against those who worship other Gods than theirs, gays, and others, then we should build the border wall at at the Mason-Dixon Line.
He never made a secret of the fact that his intent was to ban people with certain beliefs about violence. For refugees from these areas, those beliefs are accepted by a large part of their populations and happen to be rooted in their religion. Whatever it's called, the intent is reasonable and if fewer people holding those objectionable beliefs come here, it is a positive policy.ReplyDelete
Bob i have learned alot in the 12 plus years i have been reading your site.ReplyDelete
i almost always agree with you in your assessment of how we treat The Others.
In fact I still agree with you but there is something that bothers me about all this. and I cant articulate it to you but i will try.
Yes our side treats the other like shit but the fact is the "The Others" also view our side with contempt as well. This is also not just as a reaction to our sides contempt but comes out organically.
The real only difference is the fact that our side lives where the means of narrative disemination lay.
The truth is what you constantly illustrate is not so much condesending contempt but pure tribalism and all sides are very guilty of practicing it.
Dont believe me go into any mega church or NASCAR ralley on any given Sunday and listen to the refrains of pure tribalism.
It is deeper and more pronounced then you acknowledge and practiced by all.
I think you should start to address this for what it is and admit that the truth is that too many parties are guilty.
I am not asking for fair and balanced.
However a little highlighting the real faults of the others would be helpful.
As for Al Franken, the difference is that now he is a US Senator and is constrained by the Office.
Remember when he first came to Congress he was dressed down by Mconnell and admonished the the senate was not Saturday Night Live.It was a humiliating comment from a true piece of shit and Al had to take it.
Also remember as to McConnell, this was a man who was the protage of the most progressive senator Kentucky ever produced, a person who, no matter the cost, was full square behind the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's and who gave good o'l mitch his start.
Well look at how reactionary he turned out, what a slap in the face of one's mentor.
Just some random thoughts.
Again bob, I owe you, Krugman, Greenwald and Chomsky so much in my education.
Spread your critique to all. We know you want us all to be flawless but sometime we need a little love to.
So someone from Yemen with the right beliefs can come in? That isn't how his EO works.ReplyDelete
Hi, my husband and I have been together 17 years are married for 5, I recently had a one night stand with a man and I told my husband about it, he basically said ok we will get through this, a week later I found out that for months he has been talking to women on adult chat rooms, I’m upset about this and now we keep arguing over everything that’s happened. I suggested counselling but he won’t go, last night he said he can’t get passed this and wants a divorce, I love him very much and I want to stay with him, we have 2 children ages 7 and 5 and I know their hearts will break. We also own 2 businesses together and I don’t want things to get messy. Please give advice, I don’t know what to do anymore. basically and recently i found out about a love site on how to stop marriage divorce and get your husband back fix up your broken relationship, coz some many have testify about this love site created by Dr happy the spell caster which i also contacted about my marriage with my husband trying to get me divorce so i sent him an email regarding my problem with my husband so he gave me the best assurance that i will have my husband back, to love and to cherish me more forever i never believe in this coz it was my first time so i put all faith in him and god so the next day after the spell, my husband call and come back home with some surprise gift, and go down on his ness apology and feel so sorry about the past and how he treated me. my husband is madly in love with me again all grateful and thankful to Dr happy the indeed he is a genuine spellcaster.contact him via firstname.lastname@example.orgReplyDelete
web site http://happyspelltemple.webs.com/
Call him, whatassp also on +2348133873774
For the time being.ReplyDelete
TO GET LOAN @ 2% INTEREST RATE with email@example.comReplyDelete
IF you are looking for a loan amount of little or huge amount between $10, 000USD to $100,000.00USD @ 2% interest rate, you will have to contact Victoria Financier Trust Company ( firstname.lastname@example.org ). She help me with funds urgently when i was desperate in need of money to payoff my debt after my husband medical expense and more funds assistance to pay our mortgage and refinance my business. I read about Victoria Lawson on how she have help lots of person and she attend to me urgently when i contacted and explain my situation to her. She has help lots of persons that i refer to her too. Contact her now with VIA EMAIL: email@example.com
*Purpose of loan:_________
*Next of kin:_________
During my time of weakness i found refuge through the spell that Dr.dodo whose contact details him on whatsAp (+234 807 835 1159) or via email drdodotemple @gmail. com At first i was always among those that condemn Africa and there traditional ways of thinking. But after reading a lot of reviews about Dr.dodo i had no choice than to give Dr.dodo an opportunity to help me. And at the end i was grateful that i contacted Dr.dodo because through his spell my husband that left me for quit sometime return home with a happy heart showering me with loveReplyDelete