Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So here are a few generalizations for you to think about among all those others. The two largest groups of immigrants from the MENA region are Lebanese and Iranians.
Both groups are generally among the most peaceful, well educated, and wealthy immigrant groups to the US. With one exception, no Lebanese, Iranian or Lebanese-American or Iranian-American has ever been involved in a deadly terrorist attack in the United States. The one and important exception is a single Lebanese participant in the 9/11 attacks. So Lebanese must be more threatening than Iranians, right, even though most Lebanese in the US are Christian, right?
It is not hard to make a case that many other immigrant communities commit more violence in the US, are less educated, and came in with less wealth. Certainly, based on the statistics, the case could be made (and in the past has been made, by the bigots of different ages) for Russians, Sicilians (hi Hank!), Cubans, Irish, Vietnamese...
But why is Iran the only one of these countries today whose people are barred from the US? What animosity drives that and who drives that animosity (Hi Maher and Harris!)? What leads people screaming about Muslims and Arabs to be so frightened of Iranians? Looked at objectively, Iranian immigrants mostly want to come to the US and provide us healthcare - what is it that leads them instead to be cast as a bunch of violent religious fanatics who want to kill us?
|
You'll find zero daylight between us on criticism of US policy toward Iran. It's ludicrous, and we should be doing everything we can to foster better relationships with the Iranian people, who are not our enemies and are exactly the types of immigrants we should be encouraging to come here.
But our policy is not the fault of people like Maher or Harris. Hatred of Iran goes back to the days of the Shah's overthrow and the hostage crisis. It's also borne of Trump's coziness with the Saudis and Israelis. I don't need to explain that stuff. You know it as well if not better than I do.
I actually agree with your criticism of anyone citing Muslims generally, as if they behave monolithically. I also don't like the criticism that peaceful Muslims have a duty to police radicals. Maher loses me there. (Harris does not offer that criticism.) But I think in an assessment of which religions are causing the most problems today, it's not unfair to say Islam is being hijacked as a justification for some awful behavior more than other religions at the moment. And I certainly don't think saying so should invite the charge of racism. (Not only because it's not a bigoted comment, but also because its not regarding any "race.")
If anyone says all Muslims are violent, or that the religion is uniquely violent as opposed to others, I think calling such a person a religious bigot or xenophobe would be reasonable. But citing an uncomfortable fact - that Islam has had a problem with violence in its name far greater than any other religion in the last 30 or so years - is just noting a sad fact. Prominent Muslims have said as much themselves.
