(no subject)

[neadods]

amilyn says it best: Homegrown Terrorism: America at War on Women.

Click through my tags below, too. Read about Noel Noeson, whose right to conscience involved stealing prescriptions and refusing to answer telephones lest he be asked about birth control. Read about the Biting Beaver, who was shuttled from hospital to hospital attempting to find Plan B until it was too late - and then was given abortion "advice" that might have killed her. Read about the head of Health and Human Services calling it "an important statement" that women be denied birth control. Read, and do not wonder why women need abortion in a country that treats them like this.

Then keep reading. Read about the doctors who've performed abortions on people who picket them - and who then return to the picket lines, because the only moral abortion is theirs. Read about the woman whose fetus died late term in utero - unable to get a doctor to remove the corpse that was festering and sickening her because nobody did late term abortions. Not even to remove a CORPSE. Read about the pro-life girl all ready to do the right thing and adopt - only to discover that none of the prolife shelters she'd helped advertise wanted a biracial baby.

There has been a war for a long time. A war of shouting, of vandalism, of intimidation, of attempted murder, and real murder. Call it for what it is:

A war.

A hate crime.

Terrorism.

Comments

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

You appear to have inappropriately appropriated a Muslim word to talk about what you're describing as a Christian movement. I suggest you reconsider. If you want to use a religious term then at least use one from the religion you're trying to insult, such as "crusade".

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Then I've doubly failed at my intent, which is not just to point at the Christian wingnuts, but to say, in a word, "you are exactly the same as the other terrorists who've attacked us."

I can only see one way out of this, so I'm going to edit the post in a different direction as soon as I post this.

ETA: Edited. Religion is no longer the drive of the last paragraph. I should not have brought either 9/11 or Muslimism into this; the two are *not* equatable and the point can be made without doing that.

I apologize for giving offense.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

which is not just to point at the Christian wingnuts, but to say, in a word, "you are exactly the same as the other terrorists who've attacked us."

Hmm, I didn't realise that. Possibly because I particularly don't associate either the Taliban (who're a Pashtun political movement who owe much of their current status to U.S. funding) or jihad (which is an Islamic religious concept) with the Saudi-funded Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the U.S. (Aside: the Saudis and the the Taliban don't even practice the same version of Islam.)

I apologize for giving offense.

You didn't offend me. I don't think "jihad" means the same as an appropriated word in USian English as it does in its original context. I think that appropriation is problematic because it means that neither USian culture or Islamic culture understands what the other is talking about when they use the word so it becomes a barrier to communication rather than a bridge.

I'm glad you chose to edit.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

You didn't offend me.

Cool. I suddenly realized that I'd have to go remind myself what you believe, and it's faster, easier, and probably more accurate to assume I'd been a serious dork.

I don't think "jihad" means the same as an appropriated word in USian English as it does in its original context.

If it ever did, it doesn't anymore. Jihad is pretty much shorthand for "9/11 and/or Taliban" in US English. And there are an awful lot of parallels between the far-right dominionist evangelical movement and the Taliban, which is the reason for the talibangelicals tag and for Starcat's anger; we're both members of a comm that has been tracking the political rise specific branches of far-right Christianity that is hostile to everything outside itself, including all other branches of Christianity.

So that's the background I brought to the original post and she brought to her answer.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Jihad is pretty much shorthand for "9/11 and/or Taliban" in US English.

Yes, which implies all Muslims are terrorists and is extremely problematic (for USians if the rest of us can't tell the difference between supposedly liberal Usians and right-wing USian nutjobs because you all use the same problematic language and therefore imply you believe/support the same things).

there are an awful lot of parallels between the far-right dominionist evangelical movement and the Taliban

Which is hardly surprising because, as I said in my previous comment, the Taliban's rise to power was funded by the US government to spread your own country's ideas to Afghanistan.

we're both members of a comm that has been tracking the political rise specific branches of far-right Christianity that is hostile to everything outside itself, including all other branches of Christianity.

Yes, and yet you verbalised your anger at your fellow USians, Christian USians, by referring to a Pashtun political movement and Islam. Something is pushing your focus away from your own domestic terrorism, even when you're trying to talk openly about it. It worries me because your ("your" individual and "your" collective) discourse on domestic terrorism is important and shouldn't be derailed by right-wing nutjobist concepts creeping in where they don't belong.

Which is why I risked more derailing by posting my first comment on this post and am continuing to derail because I think you might need to see/know what appears to be happening from my outside perspective.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

and is extremely problematic (for USians if the rest of us can't tell the difference between supposedly liberal Usians and right-wing USian nutjobs because you all use the same problematic language and therefore imply you believe/support the same things).

Which is why I rewrote; it was faster and easier to make my point by backing away from loaded language, once my attention was brought to the non-US view.

the Taliban's rise to power was funded by the US government to spread your own country's ideas to Afghanistan.

American foreign policy, particularly as practiced by the same people who shook Saddam's hand a couple decades ago and then bombed the snot out of him now is a whole 'nother conversation. Personally, I don't deny it, I never agreed with it, I had no control except overridden votes about it.

The parallels now, to a liberal American woman, have little to do with foreign policy and everything to do with the parallels between self-appointed religious leaders oppressing women in particular in the name of purity or religion or family rights or whathaveyou. The complete whackaloons aren't throwing acid in schoolgirls' faces here, but they are literally standing between them and doctors providing legal medical services, screaming at them, forcing them away from the doors, and in many cases stalking them. And now one of them has committed an assassination while all the people who urged him into it wash their hands of it.

I think you might need to see/know what appears to be happening from my outside perspective.

I'm schizophrenic about this, because while I agree that it never hurts to get an outside perspective and I agree with your original comment or I wouldn't have edited; at the same time, this particular conversation is an American speaking mostly to other Americans about an American atrocity, and thus using language, including appropriated words, as it would be understood by that audience. Plenty of what I write about is generic enough to be worldwide, but politically, it's like your BNP posts. I can read them, but what's the point of the American point of view on them? It's not like I could vote.

As I type, Countdown (a political commentary show) is running and giving a much more detailed parallel between domestic and imported terrorism.

They haven't used the j word. :)

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

this particular conversation is an American speaking mostly to other Americans about an American atrocity, and thus using language, including appropriated words, as it would be understood by that audience.

O'Reilly and Limbaugh do exactly the same.

I wonder where American Muslims have been disappeared to.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Also, I apologise that my original comment, directed at you, seems to have become a whole thread of derailment from the important issues addressed in your original post. Sorry.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Like I've never wandered off on a tangent in other people's posts. :) Don't think twice about it.

I look at it this way. It's not a bad thing to be reminded that my readership may not be legion, but it is international. Better to deal with an issue that might derail the larger conversation head-on and thus get *back* to the larger conversation than get all fussy about a single word when it's an avoidable one and, as Box points out, not a bad reminder.

And there's gonna be plenty of discussion of this all over the blogosphere. I'm a bit surprised jonquil hasn't posted yet.

I do, by the way, continue to rec amilyn's post if you haven't followed the link. She has had to deal directly with more of the issues related to the assassination than I have.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

You don't see the many similarities between these people (the Christian Taliban) and the Islamic Taliban?

Look harder, and with your eyes open.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I see extreme parallels between the Christian Taliban and the Islamic Taliban; this is a post with the "talibangelicals" tag.

But just as I know many faithful Christians who are sickened by what happened today, there are many faithful Muslim who are sicked by 9/11. I can either go into a whole twist about what I really meant by using "jihad" or I can listen when someone I respect says "don't go there" and focus on the topic at hand, which has plenty of outrage on its own.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

You don't see the many similarities between these people (the Christian Taliban) and the Islamic Taliban?

I have no idea what you're talking about or why you're directing such an obviously trollish remark at me but as you haven't quoted my comment or responded to the content of my comment I'm going to assume you either didn't read or didn't understand it.

Look harder, and with your eyes open.

Don't project your ignorance and inability to read onto me.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. It was ill-done of me to let my anger about this incident slop over onto you, and I apologize.

I do think that "jihad" is an entirely appropriate description for this particular campaign. There's a widespread myth in America that the only terrorists are the Muslim kind. Using words from Islamic culture to describe our home-grown Christian religious terrorists serves to underline the similarities between the two groups. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have much the same kind of influence over their followers that Muslim religious leaders exercise over theirs; what they have been doing is very little different from issuing a fatwa, and should be recognized as such.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

Thank you for apologising. I do understand that this is an extremely sensitive issue for all thoughtful USians (whichever stance they take). I've posted about US Christianist terrorists on my journal before. I understand very well that what happens in the US today can be exported to Europe tomorrow.

I do think that "jihad" is an entirely appropriate description for this particular campaign.

I have a friend who's a jihadi. His current jihad involves supplementing the donation of 10% of his income to charity, which is a requirement in most forms of Islam, with the ongoing donation of 10% of his leisure time to charity work. I have difficulty understanding why you might think he's like (possibly/probably Christianist) terrorists who murder doctors. In fact I'm currently giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't think that and are merely uninformed about the meanings of the word "jihad" beyond the inappropriately appropriative, islamophobic, and perjorative usage by USian right-wingers. I can't rly understand why you'd want to follow their linguistic lead and end up sounding indistinguishable from them but that's your decision.

There's a widespread myth in America that the only terrorists are the Muslim kind.

Which is ironic considering the US has been a net exporter of terrorism to other countries, including Britain, for decades. But, yes, I'm aware that the US, like Britain and many other countries, is reluctant to name some of its domestic terrorists an that way.

Using words from Islamic culture to describe our home-grown Christian religious terrorists serves to underline the similarities between the two groups.

I suspect you didn't mean that the way it appears but, interestingly, the way it appears is exactly why I'm objecting to the usage of "jihad" in the context of (Christianist) USian terrorists: because comparing "Islamic cultures" to terrorists is, frankly, so unbelievably wrongheaded that I don't have polite words to describe how appalling it is. It's the equivalent of implying, for example, all USians are murderous cannibals. It's a lie. And, even worse, it reinforces the same lying xenophobic propaganda spouted by USian right-wingers and used as an excuse fior everything from torture to war.

Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have much the same kind of influence over their followers that Muslim religious leaders exercise over theirs

No, rly, no. You can't lump all Muslim religious leaders in together and expect to be taken seriously. Also, you're implying an equivalently undifferentiated detrimental effect which doesn't exist on one side of your equation. Clue: it's not, imo, the O'Reilly and Limbaugh side.

what they have been doing is very little different from issuing a fatwa, and should be recognized as such.

You don't appear to know what "fatwa" means either. You should probably stop using words from other languages that you don't understand because it's making you look extremely stupid and again I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you aren't as stupid as you appear.

For the record: a "fatwa" is a legal ruling based on the Quran. For example, one of my friends wanted to wear modest western-style clothes to college but her parents were trying to insist she should wear their traditional ethnic clothing so she went to a Quranic scholar and asked him for a ruling and, after reminding her that the Quran says she should respect her parents, he issued a fatwa backing up her right in Islamic law to wear any form of modest clothing she pleased. Oh, and Islamic scholars are only allowed to issue fatwas on subjects they're experts on... unlike O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

The problem here is that both fatwa and jihad have been used in *both* contexts. Jihad may not only mean "violent attack," but it has also been used in that context. Jihad has been used, not by Americans, to describe Al Queda's attack on 9/11. And fatwa has been used, not by Americans, for the death sentence put on Salmon Rushdie.

In that context, fatwa would be a very good word to use. Just as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei insisted that what Rushdie wrote was so offensive he should be killed even if he repented, so Randall Terry and Bill O'Reilly have insisted that someone "do something" to stop Dr. Tiller from performing legal acts that offended them. The only major differences are that one leader was political and the others are charismatic - and thus one could outright call for an assassination, while the other two could only hint that it would be a very good idea.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

So... your argument appears to be that it's fine and dandy to sound exactly like USian right wing nutjobs because an Iranian right wing nutjob said something which was translated into English in a way that might support the inappropriately appropriated USian usages.

O_O

...

O_O

I hesitate to ask this but... has it ever occurred to you not to use extremists as a pattern for your behaviour?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I feel obligated at this point to mention that I *did* edit the original post and have not changed it back, nor have I used that language outside this discussion.

your argument appears to be that it's fine and dandy to sound exactly like USian right wing nutjobs because an Iranian right wing nutjob said something which was translated into English in a way that might support the inappropriately appropriated USian usages.

My argument, mostly stung in response to the several times "ignorant" came up was to defend that I *have* been paying attention to current events, and see plainly that certain words have been used in certain contexts regardless of their original or inherent meaning. Jihad. Pro-life (to bring the conversation back to the fast-fading original point). Saying "those words don't remotely mean XYZ violent event" doesn't change that terms have been appropriated not just by other cultures, but by radical fringes within the original culture to *specifically cover* XYZ violent event. There are people here celebrating Dr. Tiller's assassination as a life-affirming event. Celebrating. A murder. As "pro-life."

So I think it isn't ignorance to point out that X word or phrase is starting to mean Y. It wasn't that long ago that "gay" meant happy on both sides of the Atlantic...

Not using extremists as a pattern for behavior is a different point, IMO. And a hell of a valid one; you have the most amazing knack of backing off and then making your point in a different direction with inescapable and undeniable logic. This isn't the first time you've stopped me in my tracks just as I'm getting settled to be bullish, although I haven't mentioned it before.

Bottom line. I won't use jihad or fatwah. I do think that the meanings are shifting - certainly tainted - by extremist use, just as pro-life and liberal and several other terms have been here. In regards to extremists here, I'm going to stop talking and start doing at the next escort class.

And you could out-logic Mr. Spock.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

I appreciate your response very much. :-)

I'm not letting extremists take "feminist" away from me so I feel obliged to support other people who won't let extremists take their words/culture away from them either.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I figured you'd appreciate seeing at least part of that. :D

Here, I've already lost feminist, liberal, and I technically never had atheist. In some places, to some people, I might as well say "satanic bitch whore."

[neadods.livejournal.com]

She's not American. The two of us have been tracking the rise of the talibangelical dominionist movement and living with the aftermath of 9/11; spiralsheep is coming at the post from the perspective of a different culture - one which isn't in a state of holy war on a variety of fronts.

[flaviarassen.livejournal.com]

Which state is that?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Good reminder for a lot of us, actually, myself included.

I will admit, though, that when debating against fundamentalist evangelical Christians, I have thrown the word "jihad" in their faces a few times, to describe their thoughts or deeds, simply because, with as anti-Muslim as many of them tend to be, I know that it will hit them like a slap in the face, but again, I see now that this borders on appropriation.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this post, whatever the last paragraph used to be.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

You're welcome - and don't worry, the post still says *exactly* what I mean!