Islamaphobia

  "Half of Americans now consider Islam incompatible with American values" 

     This is a recent statistic from a survey conducted by the Public Religion Institute. The post 9/11 era has now revealed serious issues regarding Islamic practice in the United States. I recently watched a Current Television channel show called, "Vanguard: Islamaphobia", that focused on the growing fear around terrorism and Islamic Religion both in England and the United States. Below is a video summarizing the important points on the issue. Please focus on the American aspects instead of the English aspects if possible.



     As stated in the video, the whole idea fueling this disagreement and hatred towards Islamic practice in the United States is FEAR. Similar to the hysteria associated with witch-craft in pre-constitutional Salem in Arthur Millers, The Crucible, Americans have now started to associate all people of Islamic faith as terrorists. It is this fear, and fear alone, that has inspired the establishment of many anti-Muslim alarmist groups across the nation. The leader of an anti-Muslim American group violently stated in the video above that the Muslim people are, "Wolf in Sheep's clothing". This saying was too me very disturbing because it portrays them as at first glance innocent looking human beings, but underneath this vulnerability was a deceptive animal capable of destruction. The use of the contradicting animals, the wolf and the sheep, help to guide us towards a distinction between friend and enemy. I believe that these groups are targeting and blaming the innocent Muslim people, because the fear of not having anyone to target in America after a tragedy is hard for people to cope with.

   Also stated in the video by an American Muslim deeply involved in the issue is that Americans think, "Muslims are the threat to America, [when] in reality they themselves are the greatest threat to America". What do you think about this statement? Does it have any merit? Can you think of any examples where innocent Muslim Americans have been blamed, targeted and even tormented in the United States because of their religious affiliation?

Occupy U.C. Davis Turns Ugly

      The peaceful protests at the University of California, Davis, turned ugly on friday when several students were doused with orange pepper spray by the police. It all began when the students decided to set up tents and camp out in the university quad as apart of their protest. This was against campus policy, and when asked to leave several students refused and locked arms. Below is a video of the incident:

    This incident fits in perfectly with our class discussions on civil liberties and peaceful protest. Like the Chicago DNC(Democratic National Convention) protests in 1968, the acts against the protesters by the police force were unjust and brutal. The police officers shown in the video above seem to be complacent with their actions against the defenseless protesters. This is a clear example of how the police have abused their authorities and have gone way to far with breaking up the protest. Due to the campus policy there was definite reason for why the police needed to clear the quad, but this was far from the most ethical way. Unlike the Chicago DNC protests, the protesters at the University of California, Davis, showed no violent acts against the police force.

      On top of this violent incident another question is posed. Should the right to peacefully protest be banned on college campuses like U.C. Davis? Nathan Brown, a professor in the English Department, states on the issue that,"The fact is: the administration of U.C. campuses systematically uses police brutality to terrorize students and faculty, to crush political dissent on our campuses, and to suppress free speech and peaceful assembly". Mr. Brown accurately discusses how police brutality is used to "terrorize" the students in order to instill a sort of order on campus. This is in fact a clear violation of our right to peacefully assembly and as many agree should not be restricted on college campuses in the United States. It is a difficult topic to set boundaries on given the current circumstances regarding Occupy Wall Street Protests, but one thing is certain, the police force completely abused their authority and had no reason to inflict this kind of pain on the defenseless protesters. Below is a link to the New York Times article I read on the incident:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/video-of-police-pepper-spraying-u-c-davis-students-provokes-outrage/?ref=us

Do You Approve This Message?

   I was recently watching political advertisements on the Washington Post website's Political Ads archive, when I saw a video that immediately caught my attention. With elections right around the corner, this is one method candidates can utilize to influence the views of the public. But we must ask ourselves, to what extent should these videos be limited? Below is the Advertisement supporting 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, and a link to the Washington Post's Political Ads archive.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/

I want to first explain a few messages I saw in this video that I found significant:

1.) Obama is a Celebrity, and Celebrities are not equipped to protect families

     This was incredible to me. This video is implying that Obama is a Celebrity in the sense of the "Hollywood" term. He is not a serious political candidate, but instead an "actor" who lives in the spot light. The advertisement then takes a sharp, serious turn when the screen turns black and white and the question is posed: Is Obama (the Celebrity) ready to help your family? When the lives of family members are put into question, Americans start to take a serious look at the potential culprit.

2.) Facades

     The advertisement focuses on revealing who the "real" Barak Obama is. Tying into our discussion of the masks people wear during class I found this message particularly interesting. Is Obama wearing a facade? Is he a fake? These are all points emphasizing that the American citizens should doubt his character.

3.) Vote McCain, Get a job and thriving economy

     The most emphasized and significant point of this political message. The dramatic shift from a somber black and white tone, to the colorful uplifting tone helps give the American citizens a feeling of hope and optimism. In my opinion the basis of all political campaigns are the important changes promised by each candidate. Especially in times of economic peril, these promises are exactly what the American people want to hear. Similar to my last post, whether or not the chances of delivery are high or not, it is the hope and optimism associated with these promises that gains supporters.

    This political advertisement clearly makes some bold statements about Barak Obama. Most of which make him out to be a fake "celebrity" who craves the spot light. I am not siding with one party or the other, but I think that it is an important issue in American society. Is it appropriate for these bold assumptions and descriptions to be made about the opposing candidate? In times where these messages can be displayed throughout an abundant amount of media sources, I feel that there needs to be restrictions on what messages can be displayed in these advertisements.

What do you think? Should there be restrictions on what messages can be displayed in these political advertisements?