The monopoly of identity and where we Western Muslims stand

[Haramoobobi]

To my fellow Muslim Americans (or Western Muslims--including CANADA~! I am using "American" loosely): ever in a setting where Muslims from the old country talk politics, talking with zeal and conviction—and you, like the well-adjusted human you are, interested, find value in yourself and your thoughts and feelings; try and put in your two cents and then a biting off your head frenzy ensues?

You see these people are so emotionally attached with their cause and with their prospect of the world and their conflicts, that they feel imminently threatened when you suggest an alternative view. You could have even visited the country but they belittle your experience and insight—if you haven’t lived there for at least 10 years, speak the language fluently, (ostensibly with this entire experience take upon their stance).then your merely told to shut up—your insight means nothing without an overwhelming emotion—perhaps love, conviction for the country and it’s experience and value it hold unique to itself.

But then again, I have always seen America as the “think-tank” of the world. A place of education, enlightenment—a place were the mind can think, aspire and contemplate the world’s problems and their solutions in an environment somewhat “detached” from “real-life” (i.e. we’re not preoccupied with the gathering of food, being blown apart from a bomb or in a constant struggle to survive). We have clarity of mind.

Or is this detachment/clarity have no place in a place like Palestine, Bosnia.. etc. and simply becomes a well-meaning-ill-fated-attempt? (the story of US foreign policy—with a “?” around well-meaning)

"Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. America is the only idealistic nation in the world."
-Woodrow Wilson, 1919

On a side note: When people do condemn you to be ignorant of their country and thus their conflicts (even though you may have family there and visited many times) that they display a double standard: Isn’t this a monopoly of their identity? Only they can own it and fully understand it? Do you see it as a double-standard that people can easily be assimilated into American society (and if they can’t due to discrimination—discrimination is condemned) but we as Americans can “never” have the possibility of understanding their dynamics?



(I hope this rant/question/debate in my mind made sense)

[MossadConspiracy]

even if you understand a society and know the language and have visited, you're still an outsider. The identity isnt yours, its theirs, you just know alot about their society. I agree that outsiders can be educated and have valid opinions about things that should be heard and considered. But they're still outsiders.

[Haramoobobi]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

even if you understand a society and know the language and have visited, you're still an outsider. The identity isnt yours, its theirs, you just know alot about their society. I agree that outsiders can be educated and have valid opinions about things that should be heard and considered. But they're still outsiders.

but isn't that a double standard? As Americans we strive for all-inclusiveness--people can become "American" and not be outsiders.
but you really didn't answer the question "outsiders"--their thoughts should be heard and considered but should they be taken seriously if they are "outsiders"? Does idealist theory have any place in a country ravaged by war and strive and thus the country is made cynical?

[Haramoobobi]

Am I the only one that feels this way?

Am I being overly analytical?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Haramoobobi

But then again, I have always seen America as the “think-tank” of the world. A place of education, enlightenment—a place were the mind can think, aspire and contemplate the world’s problems and their solutions in an environment somewhat “detached” from “real-life” (i.e. we’re not preoccupied with the gathering of food, being blown apart from a bomb or in a constant struggle to survive). We have clarity of mind.

That cuts both ways.

In one sense, yeah - you have a broader view of things because you're life is not in immediate or moderate danger, you have access to so much information and you can sift through it at a very broad level.

In another sense, - precisely because you haven't lived in the problem areas, experienced their struggles, and really understood the nuanced items at play, ... because of that, you're not qualified to have any substantial take on the issue. Case in point is the issue of Karen Hughes being appointed as the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy - she failed at her job - as did the previous two appointees - because they simply didn't have the experience that comes with being on the ground in the thick of it.

[MossadConspiracy]

yeah but karen hughes also had no relevant language skills, no academic background in the work she was doing, no experience in the regions where she was expected to heavily focus, etc. She had no qualifications at all, I think the question here has to do with an outsider that is actually very qualified, but is still an outsider.

ws

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

yeah but karen hughes also had no relevant language skills, no academic background in the work she was doing, no experience in the regions where she was expected to heavily focus, etc. She had no qualifications at all, I think the question here has to do with an outsider that is actually very qualified, but is still an outsider.

ws

She did have lots of qualifications and experience, but none relevant for the job she was tasked with.

In any case, I was referring explicitly to the scenario presented in the part of the OP that I quoted. She was referring to someone sitting in America, thinking about these challenges - as if sitting in America and having access to all sorts of information about the region / area / issue being discussed, and being free from mortal / financial / social / political challenges means that you have "clarity" of mind.

You don't.

[MossadConspiracy]

well yeah of course she was qualified to do some job

anyway i understand the point you're making. having family connections and a shared heritage with the people of a society gives you a deep layer of understanding. But I also think cultures arent opaque, alot can be learned about them. While the outsider might not ever think like the insider, its more than possible for them to learn about how the insiders think. I dont know if that can be done without alot of first hand exposure to a society by actually living there.

In most cases those who butt in do tend to be ignorant

ws

[MuslimZ]

Hm, in some cases I'd argue outsiders are essential in giving input on any given conflict. They do not have the fog of embedded emotions to cloud their judgement or prevent them from thinking clearly. My own experience with my "motherland" (not fatherland) of Kashmir would seem to prove this. Things have denigrated so much, Kashmiris can't see Indian soldiers as anything more than "dogs". And you can't make peace with dogs nor engage in dialogue with them. Of course, Indian soldiers have come to see Kashmiris in much the same light. When both sides see the other as subhuman, you can't expect rationality or practical solutions. In those instances, an outsider's objective perspective is crucial.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by MuslimZ

Hm, in some cases I'd argue outsiders are essential in giving input on any given conflict. They do not have the fog of embedded emotions to cloud their judgement or prevent them from thinking clearly. My own experience with my "motherland" (not fatherland) of Kashmir would seem to prove this. Things have denigrated so much, Kashmiris can't see Indian soldiers as anything more than "dogs". And you can't make peace with dogs nor engage in dialogue with them. Of course, Indian soldiers have come to see Kashmiris in much the same light. When both sides see the other as subhuman, you can't expect rationality or practical solutions. In those instances, an outsider's objective perspective is crucial.

Yeah Z thats true, which is why I'd say the best people to handle and mediate a foreign conflict is those people who have a foot on both sides. Zalmay Khalilzad is a great example, in my opinion.

You would be another, if you go down that line.

Better get used to wearing the ties, dude.

[Haramoobobi]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Yeah Z thats true, which is why I'd say the best people to handle and mediate a foreign conflict is those people who have a foot on both sides. Zalmay Khalilzad is a great example, in my opinion.

You would be another, if you go down that line.

Better get used to wearing the ties, dude.

who is Zalmay Khalilzad?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Haramoobobi

who is Zalmay Khalilzad?

Zalmay Khalilzad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read away.

iqra ... bimi rabbik alladhee khalaq ...

[Haramoobobi]

thank thee

JAK