UNITE against RACISM
The mount of a hideous fresh irrational fear is intimidating multiculturalism.
One of the most significant ways the world has distorted since the dreadful felony of September 11 has been the increase of an unsightly strain of Islamophobia all through the Western humanity. Beginning this new ideological virus
On the far right of the political range something sociologists have come to call "new racism" seems to be taking hold. Previous racism debated that the obstinate differences stuck between human groups were entrenched in biology and blood. This shape of racism was discredited by Hitler and the Holocaust. A new racism took its place. It argued that differences between human collectivities were based on the eventual inappropriateness not of blood and biology but of civilization and belief.
Following 9/11, in
Stone was attentive, of course, that on account of his proposition he would be accused of racism. Such accusations were, he claimed, both mischievous and wrong. In advocating a ethnically biased immigration policy Stone pointed out he had no noticed in the color of a probable migrant's skin. The only matter that troubled him was "culture" and not "race".
In focus of the scholastic description of new racism, John Stone and his followers unsuspectingly supplied an almost perfect textbook casing. The second stand of Islamophobia, boosted by the actions of September 11, took place on more conventional Christian ground. The best instance here was seen in the writings of Andrew Bolt, resident right-wing columnist at the Melbourne Herald Sun.
In the beginning Bolt responded to September 11 in a decent way. Was it not, he argued, a "tragedy" that the crimes of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists had rendered "the many serene Muslims among us the worthless target of misgiving and abhorrence". Would it not, he argued, be "a discredit if the terrorist carnage in the
Inside three months of September 11, Bolt was experiencing "severe qualms about the function of Islam in a worldly, multi-ethnic country akin to
"Let's match up to," Bolt wrote on June 3, 2002, "those two nearly all holy of men - those founders of great religions. Unlike Mohammed, Christ did not slaughter unbelievers, perform women who sang impolite songs about him, cut off the limbs of apostates, sleep with a woman whose family he had just killed, have sex with a nine-year-old, urge the murder of Jews, authorize the thrashing of wives . . . and assure ecstasy above all to those who made war on infidels." I do not know whether it was a matter of concern for Bolt or his editor that he was writing, thus, of the man who stood at the centre of the faith of 300,000 or so of their fellow Australians.
In actual fact, Andrew Bolt was not the lone journalist in
In conjuring this moral panic - as Media Watch exposed last Monday - Albrechtsen, on more than one juncture, indistinct the confirmation on which she relied. Where, for illustration, a French sociologist had written of rape as a beginning ritual of young men, Albrechtsen claimed, quite incorrectly, that he had been writing purposely about Muslim males. Or again, to divulge the insensitivity of the local Muslim leadership on the question of the
Nobody acquiring even a transitory contact with the history of race relationships could be ignorant of the volatile potentiality of the question of inter-ethnic rape. Accordingly, no contemporary subject in
The materialization of Islamophobia in
Tags: Racism , New , Fersh , Islamophobia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.