Posted on 05/20/2016 11:11:01 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
“Before I get started, I just wanted to say that we are meeting on stolen indigenous people’s land. That’s really important to acknowledge.” So declared San Francisco State University race and resistance studies professor Rabab Abdulhadi, at the University of California, Berkeley’s Seventh Annual International Islamophobia Conference in April.
Abdulhadi’s seemingly disjointed declaration was typical of the post-colonial, “intersectionality”-driven jargon of the entire conference, which sought to link the mythical plight of America’s prosperous, content Muslim population, with the struggles of every oppressed minority known to man. It was also an opportunity for two academic centers at opposite ends of the country to join forces and promote what was euphemistically referred to at the 2015 UC Berkeley conference as “Islamophobia studies.”
While UC Berkeley Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP) director and conference convener Hatem Bazian gave the opening remarks, John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) and project director of ACMCU’s Bridge Initiative, “a multi-year research project that connects the academic study of Islamophobia with the public square,” was the undisputed star.
Esposito was introduced by Munir Jiwa, director of the Center for Islamic Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, who, after noting that one of the scheduled speakers on the same panel was unable to attend, added with a smile, “I’m sure Dr. Esposito will be happy to take up the time.” Esposito did not disappoint, delivering a long, rambling talk filled with humorous asides and one-liners to which the audience responded with hearty laughter. He clearly reveled in being the center of attention and joked at the outset about his family, “They think I’m a humble person; my wife will tell you that I’m faking it.”
Musing on his experiences in academe regarding Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, Esposito claimed that prior to that, “there was no Islam unit in the American academy” and thus, “no jobs when I finished my degree.” He later returned to the subject: “The first half of my career, people treated me like an academic, which means they ignore you. You’re in the Ivory Tower, who cares? The Iranian revolution changed that.”
Esposito lamented that the “lens through which Islam and Muslims came to be seen was people chanting, ‘Death to America,'” and, blaming the U.S. instead of Iran’s bellicose theocracy, concluded, “The danger was that we’re looking for a new global threat” and “Islam was the only global ideology.”
Presenting “Islamophobia” as an empirical fact, Esposito wondered aloud that there are “still those who want to say it does not exist.” He criticized “the mainstream media” for promulgating this alleged bigotry beginning with the Ground Zero Mosque controversy and, after announcing that “media coverage of Islam hit an all-time high” in 2015, conceded that “the causes are fairly obvious and some of them are good reasons to be concerned: international terrorist attacks.” Yet, he accused the media of “hyping the threat in America and Europe” and insisted, referencing the April 19 anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, that the “main terrorist threat is from white, anti-government, also often Christian-identity type movements. That has to come out.”
Turning to the “anti-Islamophobia” movement, Esposito praised reports from biased, complicit sources such as the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR)—a conference cosponsor—and the Center for American Progress for exposing a “cottage industry” and funding “for these kinds of things,” before directing the audience to the Bridge Initiative website. He said nothing about the conflict of interest in Bridge’s substantial Saudi funding, instead focusing on the initiative’s efforts to “set up alternative narratives,” “penetrate social media,” and achieve “search engine optimization,” before deducing, “It’s the storytelling.”
Clearly, that “storytelling” has had its intended effect in Western academe, for, in a revealing statement, Esposito pointed out that, “As someone who speaks at a lot of conference and universities, the last few years, ninety percent of my invitations [in the U.S. and UK] have to do with Islamophobia.”
It’s little wonder that “Islamophobia studies” appears to be proliferating. IRDP is certainly doing its part with its politicized bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal, and by linking this year’s conference with the Bridge Initiative and by extension, the East Coast with the West.
“Islamophobia studies” may be in its infancy, but the growing number of national and international conferences devoted to the subject indicate a disturbingly bright future for this anti-intellectual endeavor. And why not? Given the politicized, pro-Islamist nature of Middle East studies and victimology’s pride of place in contemporary academe, it’s a Faustian bargain for our time.
My islamophobia just got worse. I learned yesterday that they execute people by dropping them into a tank of nitric acid.
I need to take that course badly!
No. We’re NOT going to acknowledge that “stolen” cr-p.
Now what.
Aren’t phobia’s irrational fears?
My fear of islam is very rational.
The following is a unsolicited medical announcement
made in the Public interest...
Islamophilia. Do YOU have it?
Get checked today!
Why suffer dhimmism and the heartbreak of Kufar?
Tired of Halal meals and fasting during Ramadan?
There is a cure, you too can become normal and
a productive member of society.
Remember, the delusion of Islamophilia only means
you will be shocked when you lose your head.
If Islam does not worry you, then you are not paying attention.
The Indians lost it, fair and square. Too late to bitch about it now.
Anyone, I mean ANYONE who advances the “stolen lands” argument, are out to do some land grabbing of their own.
“This land is ours, and we want it back” is a scary statement that has started many wars.
For historical perspective, google “irredentism”.
And those Indians just stole it from some other tribe.
I think I’d show up to that class everyday smelling like bacon.
...there are “still those who want to say it does not exist...
With the satanic Koran ordering it’s followers over 100 times to kill, maim, and enslave unbelievers, it’s no wonder
there’s a phobia. Those commands have never been rescinded.
It’s a clear divide between civilization and organized savagery.
Before I get started, I checked her bio and found that she has been educated and has"worked" on stolen indigenous people's land all across the country. That's really important to acknowledge. If that upsets her so much, why hasn't she left? In fact, as a person who is about 1/64th indigenous, I invoke my claim on any land she happens to be standing on at the moment, and insist on her departure.
They count on people thinking this kind of thing through about as deeply as the thickness of tissue paper.
Tell him that when he disavows the Islamic conquests we’ll disavow the US wars with the American Indians.
just about everywhere Islam exists is stolen land, stolen from previous inhabitants with mass bloodshed and depravity.....
“islamophobia” is another name for rationality
“....John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU)....”
Sometimes I forget that there are people out there that genuinely believe that Muslims and Christians are compatable.
What’s more, how much has this person helped the American Indians?
The American Indians may wake up to the fact that if Europeans hadn’t occupied the land, they might have gotten conquered by “Moors.” They might get the short end of some sticks on their current reservations (although they get favorable treatment with respect to houses of vice) but there is no way on God’s green earth that we would let these Moors mow down our American Indians.
Abso-freekin-lutely!
Or for being provoked just like jihadists try to provoke.
I’m all for dispassionate, but effective, push backs. They try to make it impossible to know who among them is an enemy and who not? Well, then we won’t discriminate at Donald’s wall. Donald says they have to differentiate themselves or else they will suffer the consequences.
Or at least very possible. American Indians were mostly nomads in a land that was large enough that they rarely really needed to get into conflict. The Western world came with its idea of fixed properties, and conquered, but was more gracious to the conquered than any society not heavily influenced by Christian ideals.
We do not suffer from Islamophobia, we suffer from Islam-o-fatigue....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.