The Religion That Can't Take Criticism
Dennis Chapman, an Iraq war veteran who always leaves thought-provoking comments here, copied me on on an e-mail exchange he had, and agreed to let me post the piece he wrote. It started when he e-mailed a woman who blogs about Islam in Europe to ask whether she was Muslim. She wrote back:
Hi, I generally prefer my articles stand for themselves, without regard to my identity. However, to answer your question: I am not a Muslim. It may not be glaringly obvious, but I think the post you refer to does not hide that.
Since she'd rather not have her identity known, I'm not linking to her site on this entry. But, here's Dennis' response:
Thanks. Actually I suspected that you probably were a non-Muslim. The reason I suspected as much goes to the heart of the impending crisis facing Islam – a vortex that we are going to pulled down into as well: Muslims seem almost never to criticize other Muslims, no matter how poorly behaved. We Americans fight like cats and dogs, calling each other out over every kind of offense, real or imagined. Muslims, on the other hand, seem unable to criticize each other, no matter how severe the offense, with the seemingly single exception of perceived immodesty on the part of Muslim women, which is dealt with severely. The Kurds I know are an exception to the general pattern because many of them, though Muslims themselves, equate Islam with Arab domination – and they love to criticize all things associated with Arabs. I know a lot of Muslims – Somali, Kurd Arab. Many of the Kurds I know are treasured friends, and even the Arabs I met in Baghdad and elsewhere were unfailingly friendly and polite, even when voicing their criticisms of the US to me. Most of the Somalis I met in that country were also very hospitable, very nice people.
One might ask why I think Islam is heading for a crisis if all the Muslims I know are so nice (and they are!). Let me begin to answer by offering a historical analogy from a great crisis of American history – the Civil War. During the years leading up to the Civil War, only a tiny fraction of Southerners owned slaves; many (including Robert E. Lee, future commander of the storied Army of Northern Virginia) claimed to oppose slavery on moral grounds; and as late as 1860, majorities in most Southern States opposed seceding from the United States. And yet, despite all this, when forced to choose, most Southerners decided AGAINST their private inclinations, voted in favor of secession, and thus followed the hot-headed minority slave-owning aristocracy into a futile war that devastated the homes and communities of all.
I refer to the behavior of white Southerners in the US prior to the Civil War because Muslims today are behaving the same way. Most Muslims are like anybody else, perfectly willing to live and let live, wanting the same thing out of life that any Christian, Jew, Atheist or anybody else wants: prosperity and security. The problem is that, like my misguided countrymen of the antebellum South, Muslims are allowing the extremists in their communities to pull them in the direction of repression and war, even though the interests and private inclinations of the majority lie in the opposite direction.
I think that two factors, at least, are at the bottom of this situation. One of them is universal to all humankind: In the short run, scoundrels always have decent folk at an advantage. Decent folk are bound by rules of fair play and are reluctant to resort to force and intimidation. Scoundrels despise rules of fair play and are perfectly willing to use violence. The advantage that accrues to scoundrels is obvious. One can see the same dynamic play out in families all the time, where parents kowtow to one ne’er-do-well kid who is making everyone else miserable while attacking any family member who tries to stand up to the lout. This is one problem that Muslims, white Southerners, 21st Century Americans, Europeans and even the citizens of the United Federation Planets (if it existed) will always have in common. The other factor is more unique to Muslims. Most Muslim societies are tribal cultures that exist in places where, until recently, absolute cooperation and consensus within the tribe was critical to ensure survival in the face of a harsh physical environment and abounding enemies. The profound reluctance to challenge the group, or members of the group, that seems to grip Muslims today is a vestige of that tribal past. It is an anachronism today, but social changes come hard. On this latter score at least, Muslims have an excuse that my Southern forebears did not.
So to an extent, one can understand the reluctance felt by Muslims to criticize members of their community. Referring back to the Civil War analogy, Abraham Lincoln in his compassion acknowledged that were the situations of the Northern versus Southern peoples reversed, the Southerners would have opposed slavery and the Northerners supported it. But Lincoln did not allow his compassion to blind himself to the basic fact – however one might sympathize with their plight, the Southern people were wrong and had to be stopped. Likewise, however understandable the subjective reluctance of Muslims to stand up to other Muslims might be, the objective reality is that Muslims are allowing a radical minority to drag them toward a precipice. They’re dragging us along with them. For everyone’s sake, the radical minority has to be stopped before they take us all over the edge.
DENNIS CHAPMAN
UPDATE: I just got this e-mail from Esther, Dennis' correspondent:
Hi, You could post my response, as well as my blog URL and more importantly, the post that started this discussion. I appreciate that you asked, as this was a private email conversation.In any case, on my blog I do not hide the fact that I'm not a Muslim, and I do not pretend to be one.
thanks,
Esther
Her site is Islam In Europe, and here's her response to what Dennis wrote:
Hi,Though I generally agree that there's a reluctance among Muslims to criticize fellow Muslims in front of non-Muslims, I don't think that's all there is to it.
Recent surveys show more and more that Muslims in Europe are radicalizing, especially the youth. I think many Muslims see Jihad and terror attacks (especially 9/11), as a way of getting back pride that had been lost. Add to that a feeling of not belonging (a feeling which is shared also by many non-Muslim youth), and you get to an explosive combination. This comes from an even worse problem than not wanting to criticize your fellows - that of not being able to conceive of yourself as anything other than a victim. It is much easier to blame the troubles of the Muslim world today on colonialism, then on the current leaders. Muslims can both feel pride at the work of their fellow Muslims in 9/11 and blame the US, Israel and the Jews for it, all at the same time.
In the article I wrote about the 'Right of Rebuttal' - my point was more that Islamists are constantly threatening Europe with a Muslim takeover. There might be many Muslims who disagree with that being a good idea, but I am sure there are also many who see that as a point of pride. Islam is better than the liberal, decadent West, and therefore it will win in the end. I understand this is a common theme of discussion on Al-Jazeera, and it is much easier at the same time to ignore the places where Islam had already won the 'war of ideas' (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Gaza). It is easy to blame 'Islamophobes' of being afraid of a Muslim takeover, but I have yet to see one Islamist being criticized for saying the same things.
On the other hand, there is a lot in common between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West. Many Westerners do not see the value of their society. They do not appreciate their own liberal values, they do not trust their politicians, or see the benefit of their political system. Muslims who denigrate the West, are in many cases only repeating what the West itself is saying. It is hard to expect from immigrants to be loyal to a country and society which isn't loyal to itself.
Esther
And actually, while many of her posts are merely news links and don't include commentary, this particular one, Right Of Rebuttal, does. Esther wrote:
If Muslims keep silent while Islamists boast about how degenerate Europe is and how it will fall to Islam - whether by demographics or ideas - they should not complain later when people draw conclusions from those Islamists and apply generalizations to the whole Muslim community.
In total agreement here!
I find it amazing that anyone can mention Mr. Lincoln and "compassion" in the same sentence. Never mind that what there was of it in the North died with the bullet from John Wiles Booth. Whatever occurred to Mr. Chapman's "southern forebears", mine, and those of most others, were hounded by a vengeful nation utterly uninterested in the plight of the black man - as can be shown by the hundred more years it took to get to the Voting Rights Act. Make no mistake about me; I am not a proponent of the mirage, "state's rights", being keenly aware that the state has powers, not rights. But the greatest tragedy of the WBTS was that people continue to mistake it as having only slavery as an issue. Not only was there significant international trade with the South producing what was considered undue economic power, the Industrial Revolution was approaching swiftly, and in a few years, absent the widespread damage of the war, the field would be populated with machinery instead of men.
One would do well to study the actual onset of the war, asking oneself, "what strategy is in play here?"; of course, this has nothing to do with advice, the improvement of personal conduct and the like. Sorry about that.
Radwaste at January 3, 2008 2:56 AM
Dennis - Thank you for acknowledging that a "tiny minority" can have disproportionate impact on the direction an entire society goes.
Rad - The actual onset of the war was, quite simply, about not allowing the North to gain the upper hand. The slave-owners had to see industrialization coming for them. They had to know that it would end them. But they fought anyway. They demanded that the federal government force Kansas to go against the will of its citizens, and instead force the Missouri Compromise upon them. Of course, the secessions started with the event of Lincoln's election, so I don't know why it's his fault, or the North's fault.
If the WBTS hadn't been fought then, it would have happened 40 years later when automation started to supplant human labor in a great many things. At some point, they were going to end up freeing their slaves. I just don't think they would have gotten to that point voluntarily, instead preferring to outlaw mechanization in the hope of staving off modernity's advance.
brian at January 3, 2008 5:35 AM
Germany followed a small group of people who formed the national socialist party. It is always a small group of people who lead while the mass of humanity follows. I doubt that the mass of Arabs in the areas concerned are cognizant of following any particular path. They may crave a group of leaders who have yet to come forward. The extremists that we are always talking about might simply be the best from which they have to choose.
William at January 3, 2008 6:57 AM
"Since she'd rather not have her identity known, I'm not linking to her site on this entry."
Intriguing. Your call obviously but I wonder at this shy and reclusive person who maintains an electronic presence on a medium with the words "world wide" in it. I suspect she said something profoundly...intemperate, the good Colonel called her on it and she had the good sense to stay down. Still, my curiosity is piqued.
martin at January 3, 2008 7:04 AM
I suspect she said something profoundly...intemperate
Actually, she didn't. But, I'm respecting her wish to just have her words, not the fact that she isn't Muslim, stand for her. She told him in an e-mail, but doesn't with to announce it, and by posting her site, I would announce it. Doesn't seem right to me.
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2008 7:08 AM
I guess I'm confused about why it matters that she isn't muslim. But if it matters to her... whatever. I hope some day she'll feel confident enough to come out as an infidel.
Shinobi at January 3, 2008 7:18 AM
I think she explains it here:
She isn't posting particularly fiery stuff...just news about Muslims in Europe.
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2008 7:21 AM
I mean, much of that is indeed fiery, violent, and upsetting -- but she isn't really commenting on it, far as I could see.
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2008 7:21 AM
"She isn't posting particularly fiery stuff...just news about Muslims in Europe."
Fair enough, thanks for providing more details about your decision. I certainly respect your right to make the call but you are generally a "cards on the table" kind of editor and I was curious.
martin at January 3, 2008 7:38 AM
As a skeptic I would suspect "a cards on the table kind of editor" to be dealing off of the bottom of the deck.
William at January 3, 2008 8:39 AM
Actually, I'm all for openness, but I was copied on a private e-mail, and I didn't feel I had a right to post it without permission. I wrote Esther, and she gave me permission, hence what you see above.
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2008 9:58 AM
Post her identity without permission, that is.
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2008 9:59 AM
I'm skeptical of this reasoning. The actual Nazis were a minority, but it's not like they sprang up ex nihilo and just pulled the German masses along for a ride. The Nazis were empowered to take the specific path they did because the the general sentiments of hypernationalism, socialism, and antisemitism resonated with the mass of Germans which is why they voted the Nazis into power and supported them through the war.
In the same way, the mass of Arabs in the areas concerned may not be cognizant of following any particular path, but a very large number of them are perfectly cognizant of and fully support following some general antisemitic, sexist, antiwestern, fundamentalist path. Being pulled over the edge by extremists wouldn't be such a danger to the masses if they weren't wandering around near the precipice in the first place.
SeanH at January 3, 2008 10:49 AM
Context is everything. Thanks Esther and Thanks Amy.
martin at January 3, 2008 10:49 AM
According to the following wiki entry, there were 9million whites and 3.5 million slaves populating the South during the Civil War. 30% of the population does seem to be insignicant in terms of numbers.
moe99 at January 3, 2008 2:49 PM
A multi-part post:
1. Radwaste: I am proud to hold Abraham Lincoln out as a superlative example of human compassion. I decline to be embarrassed by your unfortunate visceral reaction. I reject your comments in both substance and reasoning - while, of course, fervently affirming your right to hold and to publish whatever views you hold on this or on any topic. The greatest tragedy of the Civil War is that people continue to think that slavery was an issue? REALLY?!?!?!?!? I am more inclined to see 600,000 dead men as a much greater tragedy than my annoying persistence in clinging to what you view as a quaint opinion on the causes of the Civil War. There is an interesting tie-in here to Esther's letter. She ends it with this:
"It is hard to expect from immigrants to be loyal to a country and society which isn't loyal to itself."
Amen. If we can't all take pride in what Abe Lincoln accomplished by keeping the Union together and ending slavery, than we can hardly expect Mullah Krekar to take to us seriously.
I could go on an on, and I may later, but for now I'd like to get on with points more apropos the topic:
2. Martin: We need to be fair to Esther. There are lots of reasons why she would want to protect her anonymity when posting on the web. If she is living in Europe, then criticism of Islam could expose her to physical violence (Leo Van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn) or ostracization and harrassment from non-Muslims (Ayan Hirsi Ayan); if she lives in Canada, she can be dragged before the kangaroo courts known as the Human Rights Commissions and be forced to cough up thousands of dollars in fines (the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission has never acquitted a defendant); and if she is living in the United States, she might just be swamped by a lot of nasty hate mail by extremists on the left - so I don't blame her a bit for wanting to keep her identity out of it.
3. SeanH: "The actual Nazis were a minority, but it's not like they sprang up ex nihilo and just pulled the German masses along for a ride."
Actually, every radical or revolutionary movement is the result of a tiny minority pulling the mass forward. This includes the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution that brought Castro, the Revolution that brought Sandinistas to power. The movement toward radical Islam is following the sam patter. All the talk of Mass Revolutionary Movements from the left is so much fiction.
4. SeanH Again: "Being pulled over the edge by extremists wouldn't be such a danger to the masses if they weren't wandering around near the precipice in the first place." Good post, but I'm not sure I agree with you here. It is one thing to want ones own homeland to maintain ultra-conservative (or rather, ultra-radical) social and religious mores. It is quite another to want to take up arms to force everybody else to adopt those same mores. Something more is needed to get the populuation on board, and that something more is intimidation - both moral (being ostracized and criticized by the community) and physical - violence and the threat of it. Intimidation is a critical component of the process of the radicalization of Islam.
Dennis at January 3, 2008 4:24 PM
if she is living in the United States, she might just be swamped by a lot of nasty hate mail by extremists on the left - so I don't blame her a bit for wanting to keep her identity out of it.
They're a bunch of bores -- the extremists, conspiracy theorists, and general nuts who foam at the e-mail. I just delete their e-mails -- like I do with Chuck's. Funniest one from today was from some conspiracy theorist in Idaho. Pasted in below:
No idea. You figure it out!
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2008 4:46 PM
Dennis - et al - you may be dismissive as you wish, but the plain fact is the slavery was not the single reason for the war by anyone's measure. Read that again carefully, Dennis; I see some straw in your post. Governmental actions taken prior to the outset of hostilities stand in opposition to whatever warm fuzzy you may get at thinking of the country's first Great Communicator. Criminy, even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single person. Across the War, what really changed in the daily ritual of picking of cotton and (hint here) shipping it to Europe?
-----
I'll tell you why I named the greatest tragedy as I did: Nobody died for the cause they were told about. Thanks for a fine example of just how easy it is to sell the public on the party line. I'm sure we'll all enjoy being dragged into the next great Religious War when Europe goes through another iteration of the Crusades.
Every generation, full of itself, thinks it can't get into these horrendous shambles because they are so much more modern and educated than those poor, backwards bumpkins. Who just happened to have the exact same opinion, themselves, as they stumbled along like lemmings. A mob is stupid, even if it's carrying car keys and a cell phone.
Radwaste at January 3, 2008 8:15 PM
All: My apologies as this has nothing to do with Islam. It does, however, have to do with Radwaste's first post above, which I mentioned that I might answer more fully later. This is that answer:
Years ago I saw noted author William C. Davis on Book TV. He remarked that contrary to popular opinion, the South’s decision to go to war was ALL about slavery. What REALLY caught my attention however was what he said next: “Don’t take my word for it – take their word for it.” I took Davis up on it and did some reading and you know what I found out? He was exactly right. The elites of the South openly campaigned for secession on the issue of defending slavery. It wasn’t implied, it was out in the open, augmented by lurid fear mongering about miscegenation and Northern abolitionists wanting to marry Southern daughters off to black men.
The interpretation currently in vogue, that it wasn’t slavery but “economics” or “States Rights” that cause the war – didn’t emerge until later, in the 1870s or 1880s, when Southerners knew that they were living under the stigma of having defended slavery in the eyes of Western Civilization (despite the fact that most of Western Civilization hypocritically supported the South at least until the Emancipation Proclamation and even after). In order to escape this stigma, they tried to recast their war effort as having been about States Rights or other vague constructs.
For an example of the reasoning that was driving Southern elites to secession in 1861, and how these elites spun their views after the war to hide the fact of slavery as being the principle motivation, consider the words of Andrew Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, over the course of several years:
*On December 30th 1860, Stephens wrote to President-Elect Lincoln to tell him that Southern unrest was not founded upon any fear that Lincoln would attack actually attack slavery in the Southern states, but rather it arose from the mere fact that the Republicans intended to “put [slavery] under the bar of public opinion and national condemnation,” and that this moral condemnation of slavery was itself sufficient to “arouse [in the South] a spirit not only of general indignation but of revolt.” In other words, Republicans declaring slavery morally wrong was enough to justify secession! (William Lee Miller, Lincoln’s Virtues, Vintage Books 2003, page 431).
*Here’s what Stephens said a bit later, after secession, in his Cornerstone Speech, March 21 1861, Savannah Georgia: “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted….(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” (see http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76 and Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion, University of Virginia Press, 2001, page 14).
*Stephens began backpeddling immediately at the end of the war, when from prison in 1865 he tried to blame his tactless Cornerstone speech on poor reporter’s notes and tried to reframe his position as this: “slavery was without a doubt the occasion of secession, [but only because the North had violated their] constitutional obligation as to rendition of fugitives from service, [ie, refusing to return runaway slaves to their masters] betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarrantees.” (Dew, 15).
*Still later, in his memoirs published in 1868, Stephens further recast his pre-war position as this: [The War] “had its origin in opposing principles of Federation on the one side and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other … [slavery] was but the question on which these antogonistic principles were finally brought into … collision.” (Dew, 16).
Stephens is merely exemplary of many other Southern leaders prior to and during the Civil War. The book I cited above, Apostles of Disunion, does an excellent job of uncovering the racist and pro-slavery sentiments that drove the secession movement. There are other indicators in the historical record as well. Anti-Slavery literature was banned in the South prior to the war and excluded from the public mails, as well as anti-slaverly speech generally.
Radwaste cites as evidence that Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, the fact that the Voting Rights Act was not passed until 1964. ACTUALLY, THE RIGHT TO VOTE WAS GUARRANTEED BY THE 15TH AMENDMENT, RATIFIED IN FEBRUARY 1870. Even setting aside the voting rights issue, one can understand why Congress did not pass the Voting Rights Act during the Civil War, considering all the other matters they were busy with:
*Abolition of Slavery in Washington DC by the *District of Columbia Act in 1862 (Woodrow Wilson, Division and Reunion, 1829 – 1889)
*Abolition of Slavery in the Territories by the *Territorial Act of 1862 (Wilson)
*Amendment to the Articles of War prohibiting the Army or Navy from returning fugitive slaves to their owners, under pain of dismissal from the service 1862 (Hondon B. Hargrove, Black Union Soldiers in the Civil War, page 26 – 27).
*New Confiscation Act of 1862 further prohibiting military commanders from returning slaves to their owners and declaring all slaves “deserted by rebels, escaping from them, or coming under the control of the United States, and slaves of rebels found on Union soil … captives and set free” (Hargrove)
*Congress passes an act for extending diplomatic recognition to Liberia and Haiti, 1862 (Hargrove)
Congress passes enabling legislation for a treaty with Great Britain for suppressing the slave trade, 1862 (Hargrove)
*1862 Congress acts to provide education for black children in the District of Columbia (Hargrove)
*1863, enlistment of black Soldiers into the US Army begins in earnest. (Hargrove)
*Abolition of Slavery in all those areas still in rebellion via the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (OK, the Executive Branch did this, but you get the point)
*Establish of the Freedman’s Bureau, 1865 (Eric Foner, Reconstruction)
*April 11th 1865, Abraham Lincoln first publicly proposes limited enfranchisement of blacks (in the audience, John Wilkes Booth hears this proposal, and in a rage declares this “nigger citizenship” and vows “that is the last speech he [Lincoln] will ever give.” Booth murders Lincoln three days later. (James L. Swason, Manhunt, page 6).
*Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared former slaves citizens, defined their civil rights, and provided for fine of $1000 or imprisonment for 1 year as the penalty for any person violating such rights http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil1866.htm
*13th Amendment ratified, banning slavery forever, December 6th 1865. http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm
*14th Amendment ratified on July 9th 1868, declaring all persons born or naturalized in the US citizens and citizens of the States wherein the reside, requiring States to respect the rights and privileges of all persons and prohibits the States from depriving any persons of their rights without due process of law.[NOTE –This is the anchor baby law. Sorry everybody, no getting around this one] http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm
*15th Amendment ratified, 3 February 1870, declaring that no State will deny anyone a right to vote based upon race or former status as slaves. [Radwaste, take note!] http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend15.htm
And then, on top of this, there is the 14 years of Reconstruction during which Radical Republicans in Congress and the Lincoln and Grant administrations tried to impose a social revolution upon the defeated South in an attempt to elevate the former slaves to full social and political equality with whites.
The attempt to revolutionize the South failed, in the short run. But the efforts of the Radical Republicans during this period layed the foundation for the fulfullment of the promise of equality decades later in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.
Dennis at January 3, 2008 9:06 PM
Radwaste, if anyone is dismissive it is you. Your post was a reflexive attempt to shout me down. Sorry, I won't be shouted down on this or any issue. You bet I get a warm and fuzzy when I think about Lincoln - and I think you are right to call him the first great communicator. That bugs you? Too bad. Confederate Flags bug me a hell of a lot but I'm not trying to shame you for flying yours. If I can tolerate the site of that symbol that I hate, you can tolerate my views about Lincoln.
Earlier I mentioned that I might post a more thorough response to what you wroter earlier. HERE IT IS:
Years ago I saw noted author William C. Davis on Book TV. He remarked that contrary to popular opinion, the South’s decision to go to war was ALL about slavery. What REALLY caught my attention however was what he said next: “Don’t take my word for it – take their word for it.” I took Davis up on it and did some reading and you know what I found out? He was exactly right. The elites of the South openly campaigned for secession on the issue of defending slavery. It wasn’t implied, it was out in the open, augmented by lurid fear mongering about miscegenation and Northern abolitionists wanting to marry Southern daughters off to black men.
The interpretation currently in vogue, that it wasn’t slavery but “economics” or “States Rights” that cause the war – didn’t emerge until later, in the 1870s or 1880s, when Southerners knew that they were living under the stigma of having defended slavery in the eyes of Western Civilization (despite the fact that most of Western Civilization hypocritically supported the South at least until the Emancipation Proclamation and even after). In order to escape this stigma, they tried to recast their war effort as having been about States Rights or other vague constructs.
For an example of the reasoning that was driving Southern elites to secession in 1861, and how these elites spun their views after the war to hide the fact of slavery as being the principle motivation, consider the words of Andrew Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, over the course of several years:
*On December 30th 1860, Stephens wrote to President-Elect Lincoln to tell him that Southern unrest was not founded upon any fear that Lincoln would attack actually attack slavery in the Southern states, but rather it arose from the mere fact that the Republicans intended to “put [slavery] under the bar of public opinion and national condemnation,” and that this moral condemnation of slavery was itself sufficient to “arouse [in the South] a spirit not only of general indignation but of revolt.” In other words, Republicans declaring slavery morally wrong was enough to justify secession! (William Lee Miller, Lincoln’s Virtues, Vintage Books 2003, page 431).
*Here’s what Stephens said a bit later, after secession, in his Cornerstone Speech, March 21 1861, Savannah Georgia: “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted….(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” (see http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76 and Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion, University of Virginia Press, 2001, page 14).
*Stephens began backpeddling immediately at the end of the war, when from prison in 1865 he tried to blame his tactless Cornerstone speech on poor reporter’s notes and tried to reframe his position as this: “slavery was without a doubt the occasion of secession, [but only because the North had violated their] constitutional obligation as to rendition of fugitives from service, [ie, refusing to return runaway slaves to their masters] betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarrantees.” (Dew, 15).
*Still later, in his memoirs published in 1868, Stephens further recast his pre-war position as this: [The War] “had its origin in opposing principles of Federation on the one side and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other … [slavery] was but the question on which these antogonistic principles were finally brought into … collision.” (Dew, 16).
*Stephens is merely exemplary of many other Southern leaders prior to and during the Civil War. The book I cited above, Apostles of Disunion, does an excellent job of uncovering the racist and pro-slavery sentiments that drove the secession movement. There are other indicators in the historical record as well. Anti-Slavery literature was banned in the South prior to the war and excluded from the public mails, as well as anti-slaverly speech generally.
Radwaste cites as evidence that Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, the fact that the Voting Rights Act was not passed until 1964. ACTUALLY, THE RIGHT TO VOTE WAS GUARRANTEED BY THE 15TH AMENDMENT, RATIFIED IN FEBRUARY 1870. Even setting aside the voting rights issue, one can understand why they did not pass that particular piece of legislation until then, considering all the other matters they were busy with:
*Abolition of Slavery in Washington DC by the *District of Columbia Act in 1862 (Woodrow Wilson, Division and Reunion, 1829 – 1889)
*Abolition of Slavery in the Territories by the *Territorial Act of 1862 (Wilson)
*Amendment to the Articles of War prohibiting the Army or Navy from returning fugitive slaves to their owners, under pain of dismissal from the service 1862 (Hondon B. Hargrove, Black Union Soldiers in the Civil War, page 26 – 27).
*New Confiscation Act of 1862 further prohibiting military commanders from returning slaves to their owners and declaring all slaves “deserted by rebels, escaping from them, or coming under the control of the United States, and slaves of rebels found on Union soil … captives and set free” (Hargrove)
*Congress passes an act for extending diplomatic recognition to Liberia and Haiti, 1862 (Hargrove)
*Congress passes enabling legislation for a treaty with Great Britain for suppressing the slave trade, 1862 (Hargrove)
*1862 Congress acts to provide education for black children in the District of Columbia (Hargrove)
*1863, enlistment of black Soldiers into the US *Army begins in earnest. (Hargrove)
*Abolition of Slavery in all those areas still in rebellion via the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (OK, the Executive Branch did this, but you get the point)
*Establish of the Freedman’s Bureau, 1865 (Eric Foner, Reconstruction)
*April 11th 1865, Abraham Lincoln first publicly proposes limited enfranchisement of blacks (in the audience, John Wilkes Booth hears this proposal, and in a rage declares this “nigger citizenship” and vows “that is the last speech he [Lincoln] will ever give.” Booth murders Lincoln three days later. (James L. Swason, Manhunt, page 6).
*Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared former slaves citizens, defined their civil rights, and provided for fine of $1000 or imprisonment for 1 year as the penalty for any person violating such rights http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil1866.htm
*13th Amendment ratified, banning slavery forever, December 6th 1865. http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm
*14th Amendment ratified on July 9th 1868, declaring all persons born or naturalized in the US citizens and citizens of the States wherein the reside, requiring States to respect the rights and privileges of all persons and prohibits the States from depriving any persons of their rights without due process of law.[NOTE – This is the anchor baby law. Sorry everybody, no getting around this one] http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm
*15th Amendment ratified, 3 February 1870, declaring that no State will deny anyone a right to vote based upon race or former status as slaves. [Radwaste, take note!] http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend15.htm
And then, on top of this, there is the 14 years of Reconstruction during which Radical Republicans in Congress and the Lincoln and Grant administrations tried to impose a social revolution upon the defeated South in an attempt to elevate the former slaves to full social and political equality with whites.
The attempt to revolutionize the South failed, in the short run. But the efforts of the Radical Republicans during this period layed the foundation for the fulfullment of the promise of equality decades later in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.
Dennis at January 3, 2008 9:17 PM
For the last two and half years I have lived and worked in the UAE, a US ally and a 85% Muslim country. At my workplace, I am one of only three non-Muslim staff members (out of about 100). My experience has been largely similar to Dennis'. My friends and co-workers are some of the nicest people you could meet.
But I have also had conversations with seemingly rational people who hold insane ideas. I was once told by one Palestinian friend that he was both proud of Osama bin Laden for being able to carry out 9/11 and punishing the US and that he believed that it was really the US government and the Jews who actually committed the act. One co-worker didn't believe me when I told him that millions of Americans shared his disdain for the excesses American popular culture. I wish I had a dollar for every person who believes that everyone in the US is "brainwashed" into supporting Israel by the "Jewish controlled media". Most bizarre to me was the praise expressed for Saddam after his execution. Here was a man that was responsible for the deaths of more than a million Muslims, and yet because they disagreed with the war, he was a victim and a hero.
Like Dennis, I thought of an analogy to the South, but I was thinking of the era of lynchings and violence. Most Southerners were not going out and engaging in violence against Blacks, but they also weren't doing anything to stop it either. A lot of them probably thought that such violence was bad, but not strongly enough to do anything to stop it, especially since those being attacked were not in the same group.
Brn at January 3, 2008 10:02 PM
Mark Steyn made an excellent point in one of his articles. He said, "There were many germans in WWII who were not Nazis, a damn lot of good it did us, or them."
Bikerken at January 3, 2008 11:16 PM
Brn, Great comments. I have had similar experiences, both on the issue of lynchings and of gullibility.
First, Gullibility: Like you, I have was amazed at the gullibility of some of the people I met - even some Iraqi Kurds, who can generally be relied upon to be several steps ahead of a lot of other people in the Middle East. One example of this gullibility centered on something called Zawra TV. This is a satellite channel that broadcasts rabidly anti-American programming, owned by Iraqi Parliamentarian Mashaan Al-Jaburi (I think, don't quote me), who at the time, I believe was a fugitive from justice. All the sudden one day I started getting really anxious, even panicked reports from my Kurdish contacts in Sulaymaniyah about this new station called Zawra TV, which until that time I had not heard of. They were desperate that I report it up my chain of command and that the US stop the broadcasts. The reason that my friends were so panicked was that PEOPLE IN SULAYMANIYAH HAD STARTED TO BELIEVE THAT THE US WAS BEHIND THE BROADCASTS! Why would they believe this? Well, their logic went something like this: The public believed that as a superpower, the US can do whatever we want, including shut the station down. The US had not shut the station down. In the minds of a lot of Iraqis, it followed logically therefore, that if he had not shut the station down, then we must WANT the station to be operating! Utterly absurd reasoning, of course, but a lot of people believed it. In fairness I must add that my contacts did NOT believe that the US was behind the station, but were worried about a lot of folks in the community who did believe it, and were worried about the attendant damage to public morale (I learned through my own chain of command that shutting the station down was no easy matter, since it's studios were located in a different country, and the satellites that it used to broadcast it's signal were owned by a company based in yet a third country, and that the State Department was working the matter. I think the station was shut down later, at least temporarily). Also in fairness, I should add that the local people's willingness to believe that we could shut Zawra TV down with a snap of the fingers was reinforced by reports they had received from Europe, that a Kurdish satellite TV station there had been shut down within 24 hours of a broadcasting a report found objectionable by the European Union. Still - even factoring in these mitigating matters, the gullibility of the public in Iraq was really astounding.
Second, Lynching: US Military jargon in Iraq uses the term "Extra Judicial Killing" (EJK) to describe the phenomenon of people getting kidnapped and murdered in Iraq. I object to the term because it is far too antiseptic. Even before reading Brn's post, I had long ago concluded that the term we ought to be using is "lynching," because that is exactly what is happening. Militias (or police acting on their behalf) - usually Shia - kidnap people they don't like, and the people turn up dead a few days later. The victims are usually Sunni, but by no means always. The Shia militia are absolutely ruthless with their fellow Shia as well when they have to be, and will not hesitate to kidnap their fellow sectarians to get money or other things they want. But it is usually Sunnis they are targeting.
The two principal militias are Jaysh al Mahdi or JAM ("Army of the Guided One" in English), and the Badr Brigade. To get an idea of what these militias are like, just imagine the Cosa Nostra and the Ku Klux Klan merged into one entity, using the same tactics used by those organizations - however, they are also like Hizballah in Lebanon in that they also provide public services to their favored constituents. Brutal, nasty, nihilistic bastards who need to be killed.
The thing is that the average person in Baghdad hates these militias and would like to be free of them, but as with the KKK and the mob, standing up to them is very, very difficult (remember my previous post about scoundrels having decent folk at an advantage). Two anecdotes will illustrate the attitudes of common folk toward the militias. The first is a conversation that I had with a history professor in Baghdad, a Sunni had had been forced out of his neighborhood by JAM. He told me that when the Americans first arrived, Sunnis felt pushed into the arms of al Qaida-linked groups, because of mutual distrust between themselves and the US on the one hand and persecution by the Shia on the other. In this difficult position, al Qaida offered them assistance, which they accepted. Before long they (the Sunnis) realized that their al Qaida "helpers" were nasty brutes, but by then it was too late - al Qaida was entrenched and the Sunnis indebted to them: They were caught. A similar process ensnared ordinary Shia with JAM and similar militias.
My second anecdote reveals people's attitudes toward these militias on the Shia side, and also occurred in Baghdad. It involves a woman named Suad, a middle-aged Sunni woman living in a Shia neighborhood. Suad was courageous lady who had refused to be intimidated into leaving. She became and informant, tipping off the Kurdish Iraqi Army troops that I was working with about militia activities. One day a patrol of these Kurdish Army troops stumbled - quite by accident - upon some police and a couple of women trying to force Suad out of her house, waiving around a bogus eviction notice purporting to be from the Interior Ministry (I still have the a copy of the notice in my files). The Iraqi Army guys immediately declared the eviction notice a fraud and told the police to get the hell out of there and also let them know that they'd better clear any future activities in the area with the Iraqi Army in the future. The police duly skeddadled. Unfortunately, this was not the last of Suad's troubles. Sometime later, representatives of JAM showed up at her house again, threatening her and trying to force her out. This time Suad called the Kurdish Iraqi Army troops on her cell phone, and the Iraqi Army called the Americans. A patrol was dispatched and arrived on scene just in time to catch the militiamen red-handed. THIS IS WHERE I COME TO THE POINT OF THE STORY: These JAM thugs were arrested in front of the whole neighborhood. And how did SUNNI Suad's SHIA neighbors react to seeing their fellow shia bundled into the back of American HMMWVs and off to prison? THEY CHEERED. The local Shia were thrilled to have these hoodlums off the street.
Unfortunately, it is one thing to want the bums thrown out, and it is another thing to have the strength to throw them out. Suad's neighbors were not strong enough to do it on their own.
Ironically, though, this is perhaps the single instance where Iraqi society might have an advantage over American society. In our culture there are really only two cohesive, enduring institutions - the nuclear family and the state. Sure, we have other institutions - businesses, political parties, clubs, etc - but these are secondary institutions, not relevant to the topic at hand. Of the two primary durable, cohesive institutions, only one can cope effectively with an organized criminal movement, and that is the state. The neither the family nor any of the secondary institutions has any significant capacity for self-help against organized violence. If the state is too weak to cope with it, then in our culture you are basically screwed - which is one reason we saw the KKK run amok at various points in our history.
Iraq, however, has a third cohesive and durable primary institution: the tribe. Unlike the nuclear family, which as little capacity for self-help, the tribe DOES have the capacity for self-help. In a tribal society, if the state is too weak to act, the tribe may be cohesive and robust enough to fill the gap. This is what has broken al Qaida in most of Iraq at this point. The government wasn't strong enough to maintain order, and for a while al Qaida was able to act with impunity. When they went to far, however, they discovered that the Sunni tribes were formidable enough to smack them down - which they did. Although there has not yet been a Shia awakening like the Sunni Awaking in western Iraq, the potential for it exists and I believe that there are early indications that it might be starting. Time will tell.
I am no fan of tribalism. In a previous epoch tribalism was an adaptive institution that helped people survive. Now it is an anachronism that, on balance, is a stumbling block in the way of progress. HOWEVER, even such an outmoded institution as this has its uses, one of which is to give Iraqi society a means of neutralizing or suppressing al Qadir and JAM much more quickly than we were able to suppress the mob and the KKK. The Tribes in Iraq are the key to a bridging strategy that reestablishes an acceptable level of security while the country moves on toward a better form social organization - as the Kurds in the north, under our protection since 1991, have already done.
As to Arabs singing Saddam's praises, yep, I hear you there too. One of my Iraqi interpreters recently immigrated to the United States. He came via Jordan and when he got here, he told me about all the Jordanian shopkeepers who sell all kinds of junk glorifying Saddam. He also told me about being accosted by a Jordanian taxi driver who recognized my interpreter's Iraqi accent. The taxi driver berated him for having "lost" Saddam, whom this driver apparently thought was the greatest leader ever (never mind Saddam's astonishing ineptitude at handling three consecutive wars and losing them all as spectacularly). My interpreter told me that other Iraqis have gotten in trouble in Jordan over altercations with Jordanians in love with Saddam (these Iraqis would be Shia and Kurd who suffered Saddam's brutality of course - among Sunni Iraqis there is a high probability that they would agree with the Jordanians. But then again, what can we expect? White southerners didn't like emancipation and Sunni Iraqis didn't like losing their sugar daddy Saddam. Nobody likes it when they're made to stop picking other people's pockets).
Dennis at January 6, 2008 7:06 AM
You mentioned "extrajudicial killing" in Iraq.
Are you aware of "extrajudicial targeting" in America?
Please read this, based on personal experience.
WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER?
Not as long as government-supported extrajudicial "vigilante injustice" targeting squads are "gang stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the rule of law:
www.nowpublic.com/world/american-gestapo-state-supported-terrorism-targets-u-s-citizens
OR members.nowpublic.com/scrivener
WHAT IF THEY COULD SHOOT YOU
WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE? THEY CAN.
nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1
scrivener at November 14, 2008 8:43 PM
"You bet I get a warm and fuzzy when I think about Lincoln - and I think you are right to call him the first great communicator. That bugs you? Too bad. Confederate Flags bug me a hell of a lot but I'm not trying to shame you for flying yours. If I can tolerate the site of that symbol that I hate, you can tolerate my views about Lincoln."
I'm sorry I missed this. Wow. You have SUCH a rosy view. Care to explain how anything you've cited (and I knew about those) made a difference? Did you not see me ask what the actual difference was in the fields across the years of war?
Here are some actual quotes of Abraham Lincoln, the President who actually violated the Constitution in the suspension of habeas corpus:
So much for the hero.
Then, there's other historical fraud.
Radwaste at August 1, 2017 2:30 PM
Fixed the link!
Radwaste at October 20, 2020 2:10 PM
Leave a comment