Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Your Professor an Islamophobe?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 04:31 AM
Original message
Is Your Professor an Islamophobe?
Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist and professor at the London School of Economics. Although his research as a scientist has ruffled some feathers in the past, his attempts as a "public intellectual" are indisputably inflammatory. In a recent article entitled, "What's Wrong with Muslims" published in his blog hosted by Psychology Today, Kanazawa wrote:


"Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a native-born American citizen, trained military officer, and educated MD and psychiatrist. Yet none of these things matters for him; first and foremost, he is a Muslim...They are all united in their values and goals by their singular identity of being Muslims. It's tempting to dismiss these observations by saying that are all 'extremists' or 'Jihadists.' That would be politically correct and comforting, but factually inaccurate."



In his very next article he boasts:


"No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but...half of Muslims worldwide are terrorists and active supporters of terrorism, who would encourage their sons, brothers, and nephews to blow themselves up in an airplane or in a crowded market."



Kanazawa is just one in a growing number of academics using his intellectual identity to promote intolerance and xenophobia against Islam and Muslims. In a recent article entitled "Going Muslim", Tunku Varadarajan, professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University and graduate from my current institution, Oxford University, describes what "Going Muslim" might mean:


"This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American--a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood--discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans."



Academics engaged in public discourse have long enjoyed an air of objectivity, a level of sophistication and nuance that raises the stature of their commentary above that of the average talking head in the corporate media. A reflection of years of study and trained intellectual rigor, academics who lend their thought to the public debate often bring with them the same measured reserve and unemotional tone that characterizes the academic literature. Used sparingly and decisively, academic perspectives on public debates have turned the tide on important issues in history, from Jonathan Swift and his pamphlets against the Duke of Marlborough during the early 18th century to stunning critiques of modern economic and social policies such as The Three Trillion Dollar War, estimating the true costs of the Iraq war, by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdulrahman-m-elsayed/phd...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
howard112211 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Yet none of these things matters for him; first and foremost, he is a Muslim..."
I take it this statement is true for most religious people. (Replace the word "Muslim" by X)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I bet the guy who wrote it has never stated that about people of other religions...
He does seem to have a bit of a thing going on about Muslims...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. And plenty of Christians have drenched the world in blood.






"Onward, Christian soldiers!
Duty's way is plain:
Slay your Christian neighbors,
Or by them be slain.
Pulpiteers are spouting
Effervescent swill,
God above is calling you
To rob and rape and kill,
All your acts are sanctified
By the lamb on high;
If you love the Holy Ghost,
Go murder, pray and die."

(from "Christians At War", a parody of a certain well-known hymn written by John Kendrick).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
You may wake the babies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes, but they're not Muslims...
What I found interesting about the article is I've seen similar sentiments to those in the article openly expressed here at DU...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-04-10 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kanazawa's a real piece of work
Have a look this piece he wrote from Psychology Today back in March 2008:

Why we are losing this war

A popular slogan, often found on buttons and bumper stickers sported by hippies and other liberals, proclaims “Hate is not a family value.” Well, hate may not be a family value, but it is an innate emotion and integral part of universal human nature....

...It seems to me that there is one resource that our enemies have in abundance but we don’t: hate. We don’t hate our enemies nearly as much as they hate us. They are consumed in pure and intense hatred of us, while we appear to have PC’ed hatred out of our lexicon and emotional repertoire. We are not even allowed to call our enemies for who they are, and must instead use euphemisms like “terrorists.” (As I explain elsewhere, we are not really fighting terrorists.) We may be losing this war because our enemies have a full range of human emotions while we don’t.

This has never been the case in our previous wars. We have always hated our enemies purely and intensely. They were “Japs,” they were “Krauts,” they were “Gooks.” And we didn’t think twice about dropping bombs on them, to kill them and their wives and children. (As many commentators have pointed out, the distinction between combatants and civilians does not make sense in World War III, and the Geneva Convention -- an agreement among nations -- is no longer applicable, because our enemies are not nation states.) Hatred of enemies has always been a proximate emotional motive for war throughout human evolutionary history. Until now.

Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.

Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running. <referring to Hillary Clinton>


More: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC