In conversation with Wiley the other day, I found that he shares the same sentiments. After I commented on the persuasive power of D’Souza, he said, “I’m scared of getting wrapped up into [D’Souza’s writing].”
Wiley also expressed a feeling of bewilderment having had many of his previous beliefs trounced and obliterated by D’Souza.
I can’t speak for Wiley, but I am comforted by Crystal’s bold attempt to counter D’Souza’s argument. Thank God someone still has a foot grounded in at least some of their beliefs regarding patriotism and the war. I look forward to hearing her elaborate on how “a conservative in the US is drastically different from the ‘conservative governments’ in the East.”
Personally, I have doubts regarding Crystal’s assertion. I believe it depends on how one defines “different”. The two groups do appear to be quite different due to different attitudes towards women and various ritualistic practices, but this may be a more a result of their respective religions, which must be a factor isolated from consideration (or else the comparison becomes one of apples to oranges). Their similarities are striking when one evaluates both groups as traditionalists, people believing in family values and slowing down the spread of progressive ideas.
[1] The traditionalists of both the Eastern and Western hemispheres have similar family values and attitudes toward tradition. The American tendency to be ignorant of these similarities supports D'Souza's theory of ethnocentrism. This image comes from a Muslim site.
I also want to address Crystal's last question, “But it is even worth [considering the enemy’s viewpoint], if D’Souza has so attested to the blind hatred the world holds for us?”
First, D’Souza does not by any means assert that the world has blind hatred for us. Yes, it is fervent hatred, but not blind.
[2] I met with David Mamet today. One of the points he made during a political digression was that as Americans, we don't respect our enemies. We debase them by accusing them of attacking because they hate democracy and are jealous of our prosperity. D'Souza does a marvelous job of painting a much more accurate, sensible picture of their stance on the United States.
D’Souza quotes a Muslim lawyer to sum up the attitude of many Muslims toward America, “ ‘We understand your interests,’ he said. ‘We don’t understand your ideals’” (82). Middle-easterners aren’t at all mystified by our pursuit of oil interests on their territory, and they understand the basis behind many of our actions there. The real doozy, as D’Souza points out, is our idealistic support of Israel. Nothing about their hatred of America seems blind to me, but perhaps I have been completely wooed by D’Souza.
D’Souza completely sweeps me off my feet because he correctly describes accurately many beliefs that most people I know have and that I have myself regarding the war and American foreign policy, and then trounces it. I don’t know if I should let one man obliterate my beliefs without more research, but at the moment, I do because his logos is impeccable.
As Ayaan Hirsi Ali states, “The problem, however, is not too much reason, but too little” (335). If all the people in my life, distant acquaintances and close friends alike are representative of America, D’Souza’s description of the majority of America’s beliefs and misconceptions is true. But boy do I hope he’s wrong.
[1] Sahar Kassaimah, "Muslim Homes," Mission Islam, 6 Feb. 2008
[2] "In Book, Mamet is Bambi to Hollywood's Godzilla," Talk of the Nation, NPR
, 6 Feb. 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment