Free Republic

Here's a quote from his C.U. website. All you need to know about this little commie in academic's clothing. No doubt Che Guevera is his hero!

The central concerns of my research and teaching include: labor and class formation, racialization, the production of urban space, nationalism, the politics of citizenship, and transnational social processes, especially migration. My ethnographic research explores the social productions of racialized and spatialized difference in the experiences of transnational Mexican migrant workers within the space of the U.S. nation-state. More specifically, I examine transnational urban conjunctural spaces that link the U.S. and Latin America as a standpoint of critique from which to interrogate U.S. nationalism, political economy, racialized citizenship, and immigration law. This work contributes to a reconceptualization of Latin American, Latino, and "American" (U.S.) Studies. Likewise, I am interested in the methodological problems of ethnographic research practice and the limits of anthropological disciplinary forms of knowledge and modes of representation.

Please take me off your group posts, okay. Thanks.

While I agree totally with the principle of the lesser evil outlined in the article, who's to say a greater evil than Saddam won't eventually arise in Iraq? A case can be made that his secular regime has kept militant Islam confined in a similar fashion (albeit far more brutal) as Musharaf's has in Pakistan. An Iraq free of Saddam and eventually governed by militant Islamists could be a far greater risk in the long run. Of course this is why it may require decades of U.S. military presence after Saddam falls.

This article is somewhat unfair. Islam did have a brief golden age, but subsequently squandered it.

Possibly a tad unfair but a necessary tonic to the Muslim propoganda.

In the West, rational discourse ultimately triumphed over religious bigotry.

Excellent point! The Muslim world never had an Enlightenment to bring it into the modern age. Hence no separation of church (mosque)from state and no ability to reason much further beyond religious revelation. The brilliance of the American Founders shine through once again.

What would it take for you to accept the possibility that people mean what they say and know more about what they say than you tell me you know what they say? Why should I believe you rather than the commandments of their religion and 1,500 years of history?

How is it that I keep failing to recognize your version of what I'm saying? Millions of people call themselves "Christians" but do not adhere to the letter of the Bible while others do--they are called fundamentalists. Likewise not all Muslims adhere to a literal translation of the Koran, while others--called "FUNDAMENTALISTS"--do. How is it that you can't grasp the concept that religions evolve into various sects that follow their sacred writings in varying degrees and in some cases, such as Protestant liberals, virtually not at all. Hence Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mormons, Unitarians etc.

In Islam varying interpretations have led to Ahmaydia, Alawi, Druze,Ismali,Nation of Islam, Salafy, Shia, New Sufi,and Wahhabi Movements. Clearly when it comes to doctrine, Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. Some of these sects take every word of the Koran literally while others have more nuanced interpretations. Perhaps Muhammad is rolloing over in his grave, but there it is.

Anyone who does not distance themselves from such a religion or whatever it is, is my mortal enemy. You don't get any slack at my house. Have you got it yet?

Yeah, I've got it. You're uninformed, closed-minded and rude!

"Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191)

Yes, this captures the essence of "fundamentalist" Islam. But some fundamentalist Christians handle snakes as well. This only proves that radicals take their book very seriously.

What I disagree with is trying to relate the present conflict to historical conflicts between the West and Islam based on the superficial labels "West" and "Islam".The "West" and "Islam" do not mean the same thing today as they did 1000 years ago. Nor are the military conflicts today anywhere near the ballpark of what they were before

Sparta can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original intent of the thread was merely an historical exercise to bring a little encouragement to the war on terror.

And isn't it at least great that we all agree on WHO the enemy is?

Do you mind if I ask you why you are defending this bull shit? There must be some sort of reason in the background

If you think I'm trying to defend Islam you have me way wrong. In my opinion it's a pathetic religion (just covering the women proves that) and we should probably intern the lot of them. The only point is that Islam has a complex history with gradations of belief in the same way Christianity has evolved with fundamentalist and liberals and everything in between. To ignore this complexity and lump ALL Muslims together is an over simplified view of history and the world.

The Islamic terrorist groups were and are being cultivated and funded by Middle Eastern governments seeking political control, a counterweight to the military dominance of the West. The problem is that the religious nature of the groups' political ideology has turned people like bin Laden (hasn't "been LaidIn" a long time) against their former sponsors. So the Saudi's Wahhabism has come back to bite them in the ass. Look, my main point is that a lot of people here are confusing political ideology with religion. Sure, the radical Islam ("Islamism") has a religious form, but I really don't see how our present conflict is about theological differences. It just isn't. It's purely geopolitics.

Why do you insist on biting yourself in the ass. Everthing you said in this papragraph was essentially sound until the last line. Political foeces in the middle east are manipulating their uninformed "Fundamentalist" masses. You cannot leave religion out of this and are fighting a losing battle to insist upon it.

Is Daniel Pipes an expert on World History? The statement that you agree with has significant subjectiveness in it. Beware of what you believe; ideas have power.

There's nothing subjective about the fact that militant Islam differs from a more traditional form. It's all about knowing your enemy. As for Pipes . . . hmm, let's see, a former instructor at Univ. of Chicago and Harvard.

I have no problem with Muslims per se, I just I have a problem with those who want to kill me because of my religion and those who deny religion is not a cause of the problem. If they are a religion of peace, they need to show examples of this and denounce the terrorists openly and honestly.

Couldn't agree with you more! The big problem I have with American Muslims is I've seen no evidence that they are not secretly rejoicing in their Mosques whenever a terrorist strikes. I don't trust them in our midst.

So now, please enlighten me as to why this conflict is religious in nature.

It's a war of global dominance for sure, but it's ideologically driven by radical Islamic fundamentalism. No doubt there are many in it for purely politial reasons, I will grant you that point. But take fundamentalism out of the equation and what are you left with. As far as Islam in America goes, Let Steve Emerson's American Jihad and Daniel Pipe's Militant Islam Comes to America enlighten you further.

Islam today bears almost no resemblance to the Islam of yesterday

Although I totally disagree with the Billybudd's assertion that the current Jihad is not about ideology, his above statement is largely correct. Daniel Pipes in Militant Islam Comes To America takes great pains to show that modern Islamists are different and far more radical than Islam historically. For much of the middle ages Islam, Judaism, and Christianity coexisted in relative peace in the Arab world.

The conflict we see today is not religious in nature but primarily geopolitical and secondarily ideological.

Looks like someone has been buying into Al Qaeda propaganda and W's political correctness all at the same time!

First Crusade: Crusaders triumph over the Seljuk Turks and capture Jerusalem, AD 1099

No, I think that the core factor for the establishment of the American colonies, was the desire to create a new land where they could exercise their religious beliefs in freedom and peace, something that was completely unknown in the old world.

Fine. Live in your little mythological dream world. But when you want to find out how the American colonies were actually settled and why I recommend you read a book like Alan Taylor's recent work: American Colonies

Those who originally settled this country came here seeking God, their descendants were given the richest nation in the history of the world. The Spaniards went to Central, and South America seeking gold, their descendants were given poverty.

You obviously haven't studied the purely economic motivation for the founding of Jamestown by the British and New Amsterdam (later New York)by the Dutch. These early colonies had nothing to do with religious liberty, but were attempts by their respective governments to establish economically viable colonies.

Missed a phrase: Modern technology has no historical precedent, and so I think that analogies of prior empires (if we are to agree that America is an "empire") are without merit.

Perhaps different, but not without merit. Call it what you want, but we are at least a benevolent global hegemony. The Roman Empire's collapse can largely be attributed to its military being spread too thin. There remains a lesson there for us to heed. Call it what you want, but we are at least a benevolent global hegemony.

You make some valid points, but have to disagree on a few:

We are a target because we are number one. We could withdraw all of our troops from every country in the world tomorrow and we would still be a target.

We are a target because of what we do, i.e. play the world's policeman. Pure isolationism is of course unrealistic and utopian--not possible in the 21th C. However, our so-called allies must ante up when it comes to defense. We can still maintain a strong military and influence democratic movements around the globe without our troops stationed in, and committed to the defense of, nations around the globe. This costs us billions and makes us THE target of the enemies of democracy. Why not let our allies share in this burden?

Modern technology has no historical precedent, and so I think that analogies of prior empires (if we are to agree that America is an "empire") are without merit.

Perhaps different, but not without merit. Call it what you want, but we are a global The Roman Empire's collapse can largely be attributed to its military being spread too thin. There remains a lesson there for us to heed.

In fact, if America attempted to pull out much of the world would collapse and we would suffer in the end

The world would not collapse. In fact it might even learn how to take care of itself with the U.S. "aiding" democratic proxies in troubled spots. This was the policy of Ronald Reagan. He never used our military as Hessians of a new world order.