The Dixie Chicks & Civility
| Thursday May 1, 2003
Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed A crisis in human history is likely to reveal more about the human
condition than we might be comfortable with. The war on Iraq is no
exception: It has revealed more than the inside of Saddam’s palaces. If anyone ever doubted it, we now know for a fact that in spite of
the “global village” we are supposed to live in, we still more or
less build our relationships on fault lines that threaten to shake and
thunder at a moment’s notice. We also know that virulent nationalism
is alive and well. There is nothing wrong with nationalism except the
fact that it is a prime breeding ground for hate and prejudice. Smaller
countries can justify their “nationalism” as fear of being swallowed
by bigger and mightier states. The bigger the country, the harder it is
to cling to such notions. In America, for example, nationalism has a
code: Patriotism. During this crisis patriotism as practiced in the United States
reached alarming levels of intolerance and violence. The right of the
other to dissent was unceremoniously thrown aside. If we take what
happened to the Dixie Chicks as an example, one is hard-pressed to
justify or even comprehend the incident. One of the ladies said she was
ashamed of Bush being from her home state of Texas. She said it while
performing on a stage in London. Had the Chicks been living under
Saddam, we know a priori what would have happened. But knowing they
lived in the United States one thought that the debate would have
maintained a semblance of civility. Instead, they were attacked, taken off radio stations, and callers to
the same stations spewed so much venom that it inevitably culminated in
on-the-air death threats. Obviously, democracy is skin deep. I thought
it was just foreigners like me who received death threats and viruses
through their emails. I was wrong. This raises another issue: Could the
Homeland security people tell the world why such people were not
apprehended? Those who threaten to kill someone for reasons of ideology
or a point of view are terrorists. No argument there. In this time of
high security alert, it is amazing that such people get away with it. In
all honesty, it is not very different from any petty dictatorship where
the party clique and those close to power can do what they like when the
rest are robbed of their basic rights. I am not saying America is not a democracy. For better or worse, the
system is the best available; but that does not mean it is faultless.
This war has shown where the malaise lies. I had written before about
President Bush’s inability to conceive of the other as a living
concept. Mr Bob Ranney, a reader from Oregon (God bless the Net!) wrote
to me saying that the phrase reminded him of “C. G. Jung’s use of
words like shadow.” He then wondered if it was a religious reference.
I must admit it was neither. It was more in the tradition of Gibran K.
Gibran who reminded us that there must be a distance between humans,
even between lovers. The distance is the arena where we joust with each
other yet maintain love and dignity. In this age of hate, perhaps it is
too much to ask for love. So let us be content with dignity. President Bush offended many in his country and around the world when
he said of the protestors against the war that they were like a “focus
group” trying to tell him how to run the world. He did not allow
others the space and dignity to voice their concerns and their rejection
of his policy. The hate mongers took their cue from his words. That is
perhaps why the ones who dish out death threats on the radio waves with
impunity do it repeatedly. I know President Bush is not a dualist in the classic or gnostic
manner. But he did slice the world into two: good and evil. Invariably,
the populace of the world was pigeonholed in one category or the other.
If the President was intent on going that way, he would have done good
by reading the great gnostic master Marcion. Marcion approched dualism
otherwise: he opposed justice and mercy, cruelty and love. The
sophistication of these words needs more space to explore, but for those
who really want to understand it should be enough. The silencing of dissent is the realm of the dictator and the weak.
Dictators are weak because they do not have wide support. Elected
officials should be immune to this. They should welcome dissent if they
really want the world to see them as liberators. The world wants to see
justice too: a public threat of murder should not go unpunished,
especially when, at the same time, Arab Americans are being rounded up
because of their names. Arab News Features 1 May 2003 |
Copyright 2014 Q Madp www.OurWarHeroes.org