Talk Islam

Andrea Useem

  • 09:00:27 am on June 5, 2008 | # | |
    Tags: , ,

    Thinking about American civil religion… can American Muslims learn to speak this language the way Barack Obama does?

     

  • Tag this post

Comments

  • BK 10:27 am on June 5, 2008 | #

    Barry makes appeal to the general goodness in American character which has developed over the decades. You can call it American Civil Religion if you like, or you can call it populism or a calling to a higher purpose.

    Americans like to think of themselves as fair, just, honorable people who don’t enforce rigid class walls. America is a place where an individual can ‘pick themselves up by their bootstraps’ and be anything they want to be.

    This self-image appeals to Americans and there is a lot of truth to it. If you talk to immigrants from Europe, Middle East or Asia, they will tell you they needed to escape from rigid class warfare in their homeland.

    Of course, America is no shangri-la and people learn that soon enough, still there is truth to the idea of Diversity, Pluralism and Populism in America. The Bush people want a two-class America but they eventually lose. One can only distort the meaning of Freedom and Liberty for so long.

    Everyone who comes to America adapts to this cultural imperative since it is pervasive. American muslims too.
    BO has tapped into the better side of American Identity.

  • aziz 11:04 am on June 5, 2008 | #

    thats really insightfully observed, BK. I think that inmany ways, with Obama’s ascension, we can see that promise of goodness in its highest form, and yet it still does not magically erase the problem. there was a segment on NPR this morning in fact that addressed this directly, by asking black voters whether Obama’s nomination affected their perception of racism in America. The answers are surprisingly nuanced.

  • aziz 11:05 am on June 5, 2008 | #

    from that segment’s transcript:

    A number of people worried aloud in that way, including Robert Whitit, who fervently believed that a black president was impossible until Obama started winning red states.

    “So many people of non-color have voted for him. I was kind of blown away by that,” he said.

    But, like Peterson, Whitit said he doesn’t feel like he needs to rethink his assumptions about racism in America: “Oh, no. I deal with it every day as a black man.”

  • BK 11:11 am on June 5, 2008 | #

    Ignorant people stand out like sore thumbs in society. Even more than the intelligent people.

    No magic bullets for racism. Just one or two steps into the light and out of darkness for the majority of society.

    I will give America haters something new to chaw on as well. Thabet?

  • BK 11:12 am on June 5, 2008 | #

    “It will give America haters…” Damn my crooked fingers!

  • thabet 12:19 pm on June 5, 2008 | #

    I have to say I am rather disappointed that you think I am an “America hater”, Buzz Kill.

    In fact, I think America does better on ‘race’ than we do, precisely because it talks openly about it.

    Sure you’ve got issues. But who hasn’t?

  • BK 12:24 pm on June 5, 2008 | #

    Don’t be too disappointed Thabet. Imma fan. I just wanted your attention.

    You do tend to be political and you do tend to post pieces like the one about French Ghetto Muslims learning to Rap in Amrika.

    But I think that is all part of the grouchy Thabet “persona.”

  • aziz 9:53 pm on June 5, 2008 | #

    I think that the severest critics of America are the ones who believe most in its promise. I have always seen thabet’s writing as that of someone speaking from disappointment, not rancor. Correct me if I am mistaken, old chap.

  • Willow 11:51 pm on June 5, 2008 | #

    Thabety Thab is a disappointed optimist, not a cynic. Except when it comes to the Arctic, which he has ruined for me forever.

  • thabet 12:41 am on June 8, 2008 | #

    “I don’t drink coffee I take tea my dear.” (But I certainly hope so, Aziz/Willow.)

    Personally, while I think symbolically an Obama victory would be fantastic (especially in our highly visual age), I believe ‘racism’ is not just about biology. So an Obama victory will be, as you say BK, a small step in the right direction, not a magic pill.

    There is also the danger of Obama becoming a Blair-like figure. No, not to say Obama and Blair are ideological bedfellows (although Obama is not vastly different to Third Way Clintonism is he?). Rather, I remember the euphoria (as a teenage A-Level student) of Blair’s victory — we had finally dumped the Tories and genuine change was on the way with New Labour.

    Heh.

    Anyway, enough about me (sorry Andrea). I agree with the core of this post. A similar point was made by a Brit Muslim too regarding the use of language to engage with wider society. When I can find that post, I will paste a link here.

  • aziz 11:04 am on June 8, 2008 | #

    although Obama is not vastly different to Third Way Clintonism is he?

    actually, Obama is arguably a completely different strain of Democrat than Clinton. Clinton’s third way was basically an attempt to triangulate on every issue to try and appeal to the center at the expense of the fringes. What Obama is doing is solidly planting himself on the left - he is far more authentically “progressive” on most issues (thouhg not all) than Clinton - and then expanding his umbrella over the center. This means that he will lose some of the voters who were just to the right of center, those who would have voted for Hillary and who favor McCain. However, its a smarter strategy for two reasons, one because the freshest ideas are on the left (with respect to actually solving problems), and two because all the passion is on the left as well (voters are tilting towards the Dem party in historic numbers).

    Clinton and Blair are almost exact analouges, and many felt the same way about Clinton’s ascension, a sense of hope to contrast with eth rpevious conservative dominance. But just as that previous consrerative dominance was not as far right as the current era of conservative dominance, the replacement era of liberal dominance now will be more liberal than the previous one. Reagan/Bush -> Clinton is a more modest movement leftwards, than Bush II -> Obama will be.

  • BK 12:00 pm on June 8, 2008 | #

    I was going to vote for Clinton as a toe-to-toe, connected, tough, surround yourself with seasoned professionals, kind of candidate who compete in a tough republican-democrat battle for president. A compromise to win the whitehouse.

    Obama, at that time, before Ohio, seemed inexperienced and hopelessly idealistic. And Black.

    Two things happened. Obama gained surprising momentum and showed he could battle with Edwards and Clinton on issues and win primaries. And it became clear that the Bush legacy was an insurmountable albatross that no republican could overcome.

    So, in a pick-your-democrat for president election year, why not really vote for change and something different from a restoration to Clinton years?

    Obama addresses my two main concerns: friendlier, sane foreign policy and a break from lobbyist run campaigns / presidencies.

  • aziz 10:56 pm on June 8, 2008 | #

    BK, if there’s one story about the primaries, its how Clinton was in fact hopelessly outplayed, and all her vaunted core of “professionals” turned out to be utterly incompetent. The level of unpreparedness for an extended primary campaign beyond super tuesday by the clinton camp was just shocking.

Leave a Comment

*

Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word
To prevent spam, please type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.