Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 11-26-2004, 08:49 PM

agreed, art.
i misunderstood the thrust of the thread at the outset a little and have been viewing it a bit too narrowly--i took it to be more about characterizations of "fundamentalism" than about american policy in general with reference to islam/the islamic world.

longer term, yes, bad geopolitical strategy by the u.s. after 1967 with reference to israel can and should be reversed. this is not going to happen in a neocon dominated buish administration (check the project for a new american century as a starting point for a dismal overview of the type of committments that animate the wolfowitz crowd on this.)

there are also discursive dimensions that make things even more difficult--the lovely term terrorism, for example; the cluster of terms that shape american political discourse (and to a frightening extent policy) outlined in the open democracy piece above (for better or worse)--more recently, the term "islamic fundamentalism"---which is never defined with any specificity---and which operates to mobilize racist attitudes toward muslims in general, arabs in particular---which in turn function both as a backhanded support for the problems outlined above with reference to the way successive american administrations have chosen to support israel and as seperate generators of obscurity in their own right.

one effect: the near-absence of coherent information on the realities of the occupation and situation of the palestinians--and an almost totally uncritical reporting of likud policies as if likud was identical with all israelis.

another effect: the conflation of islamic fundamentalism with its (american-based) christian discursive double. non-differentiation of basic terms like this are important for maintaining the background noise of paranoia which is key for the world according to george w bush. it worked fairly well as the center of his marketing campaign since 2001. but it was, is, and remains incoherent analytically. the usage of the term islamic fundamentalism refers much more directly to the political requirements of this administration at home than it does to anything in the real world.

=====

regarding the responses above to the initial post on the various phases of the history of the "jihadist" movement: if you read the articles i posted, you'll see that the movement was a history--that it is not a single entity--that its primary constituency has shifted across time. the more recent variants of the movement have emerged largely in conditions of economic and cultural marginality. this most recent period is just that--the most recent period--it does not stand for all periods.
i dont really see where the confusion could have come from that set off a phase of others reassuring themselves that these folk were always and everywhere wealthy or "middle class" folk--it is bizarre to read--it is almost like they really want to believe that these movements are precisely what they are not---representative of islam in general. what purpose this serves, i can guess--as can anyone. it is of a piece with the fatuous "clash of civilizations" thesis so dear to the hearts of tv viewers around america. a 30-second pseudo-understanding of a complicated world.

11-26-2004, 08:49 PM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	agreed, art. i misunderstood the thrust of the thread at the outset a little and have been viewing it a bit too narrowly--i took it to be more about characterizations of "fundamentalism" than about american policy in general with reference to islam/the islamic world. longer term, yes, bad geopolitical strategy by the u.s. after 1967 with reference to israel can and should be reversed. this is not going to happen in a neocon dominated buish administration (check the project for a new american century as a starting point for a dismal overview of the type of committments that animate the wolfowitz crowd on this.) there are also discursive dimensions that make things even more difficult--the lovely term terrorism, for example; the cluster of terms that shape american political discourse (and to a frightening extent policy) outlined in the open democracy piece above (for better or worse)--more recently, the term "islamic fundamentalism"---which is never defined with any specificity---and which operates to mobilize racist attitudes toward muslims in general, arabs in particular---which in turn function both as a backhanded support for the problems outlined above with reference to the way successive american administrations have chosen to support israel and as seperate generators of obscurity in their own right. one effect: the near-absence of coherent information on the realities of the occupation and situation of the palestinians--and an almost totally uncritical reporting of likud policies as if likud was identical with all israelis. another effect: the conflation of islamic fundamentalism with its (american-based) christian discursive double. non-differentiation of basic terms like this are important for maintaining the background noise of paranoia which is key for the world according to george w bush. it worked fairly well as the center of his marketing campaign since 2001. but it was, is, and remains incoherent analytically. the usage of the term islamic fundamentalism refers much more directly to the political requirements of this administration at home than it does to anything in the real world. ===== regarding the responses above to the initial post on the various phases of the history of the "jihadist" movement: if you read the articles i posted, you'll see that the movement was a history--that it is not a single entity--that its primary constituency has shifted across time. the more recent variants of the movement have emerged largely in conditions of economic and cultural marginality. this most recent period is just that--the most recent period--it does not stand for all periods. i dont really see where the confusion could have come from that set off a phase of others reassuring themselves that these folk were always and everywhere wealthy or "middle class" folk--it is bizarre to read--it is almost like they really want to believe that these movements are precisely what they are not---representative of islam in general. what purpose this serves, i can guess--as can anyone. it is of a piece with the fatuous "clash of civilizations" thesis so dear to the hearts of tv viewers around america. a 30-second pseudo-understanding of a complicated world. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 11-26-2004 at 08:52 PM..