Re: Burkas and Shoe-Bombers
Christopher Hitchens asks in Vanity Fair : “How did a nation move from cricket and fish-and-chips to burkas and shoe-bombers in a single generation?”
The question isn’t answered in the article. Nor do we get to learn anything at all about why young Brits with more melanin in their skin than Hitchens find it easy to respond to the abominable views of the fundamentalist imam of Finsbury Park. Hitchens finds the easy way out by citing the anti-fundamentalist views of two brown writers, both of whom we like a great deal, Hanif Kureishi and Monica Ali. We hear something about the limits of British multiculturalism, and sure, it has to be blamed for the ways in which it has pandered to extremists of all faiths. But such a strain of multiculturalism is a part of the system of racist practice, not an exception to it, and the same can be said of fundamentalism too, united at birth with the racist system it purportedly opposes. There is a strong whiff of racism in the Hitchens piece; it would appear that anything that is resistant to assimilation merits being banished from the West. But my main objection to the article is its remarkable blindness to the way in which brown or black youth are automatically seen as outlaws. Because, sadly, religion is the modality in which race is lived, I’d like to recommend to Hitchens recent films like “Bradford Riots” and “The Road to Guantanamo.” (And, by the way, is Hitchens the only person on this planet to want fish and chips over seekh kebab or that particularly British-Asian concoction called chicken-tikka-masala?)
(Via Arts and Letters Daily)
The post-9/11 descent of Christopher Hitchens one of the best adverts against alchoholism I have ever seen. He displays all the classic symptoms: denial, sluggishness of mind, delusions and paranoia. The belief that scary brown Muslims are everywhere attempting to disrupt the utopian world of his ‘multicultural past.’
“For the British mainstream, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group has become the equivalent of profanity.”–Hitchen’s in Vanity Fair.
Where and when did this Britain exist? And for whom? Both the threat and the threatened are heavily imagined…with sad consequences for Britain’s ‘multicultural’ youth.
See more here:
http://www.passtheroti.com/?p=333
Comment by Aatish — May 24, 2007 @ 2:22 am
Amitava, this is predictable but nevertheless deeply depressing. What is it with this country? I am British, but spend some time out of the country, usually in parts of Africa, most recently in Angola. I am always struck, when I return home, by the aggression here, by the closed minds and by the arrogance of, well in my case, Londoners. Christopher Hitchens is not a complete fool - once, he even had a brain - but he is close to total foolishness. I loathe him. The funny thing is this: ‘There is nothing in the known universe about christopher-hitchens-finsbury-park’ which I found when I clicked at the bottom of your blog. If only there were really nothing in the known universe about Mr Hitchens. We’d be better off for it. But how, tell me, HOW does he get so many column inches? Why do editors give him so much space? Why is he taken seriously by (sometimes) serious publications? I think I find that more depressing than the man himself.
Comment by Lara — May 24, 2007 @ 4:15 am
I worry about how people refuse to face down the menace of Islamic extremist ideologues in Britain. It is a very real problem, and some people are in denial about it — and they take at face value the claims that this extremism is fostered by ‘racism’ which has become channeled into ‘religion’. Most Muslims do not express their frustrations by resorting to a loathsome, horrific hate filled ideology, nor do other minority groups like Hindus or Sikhs or African-Carribeans.
It’s easier to call Hitchens a racist than to face up to this very real problem, because we might have to examine some of our own myopia and biases.
Munira
London
Comment by Munira — May 24, 2007 @ 9:12 am
I agree that the radicalization of young British Muslims, particularly toward a type of virulent, violent Islam must be confronted. I just don’t think Hitchens meaningfully does this, nor do i think that this is primary intention. Islamic fundamentalism in Britain will not be curbed by having nostalgia for a fictional past utopia of British multiculturalism. Nor will it be confronted by repeating the same awful binaries of tolerant Britain and fanatic Muslim. This dichotomy has a much longer history that is not irrelevant to events in Britain today. Saying that Hitchen’s is racist does not deny a problem. Obviously, young Britains blowing themselves up and killing civilians is a problem. Arguing that the general response to this problem from mainstream Britain and Hitchens is racist and unproductive is neccessary if we want to even begin searching for a solution.
Comment by Aatish — May 24, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
So according to you Aatish, ‘mainstream Britain’ is racist and until ‘mainstream Britain’ has demonstrated otherwise, the racist, fascist, extremist ideology being fostered by Muslim radicals amongst Muslim youth cannot be examined or criticised? I believe this is sophistry and nonsense. You also place yourself in the quite bizarre position of dismissing Hanif Kureishi and Monica Ali and a number of other Asian writers and artists as being in some way saps to ‘racist mainstream Britain’ for crying out against the extremists, their unhinged racism and hate ideology. And so you abandon us to the cancer growing within us. Thanks for nothing — as I said, it’s easy to scream ‘racism’ and watch rabble rousing TV movies from a distance than examine your own myopia and biases.
Munira
London
Comment by Munira — May 24, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
No…again, you (willfully) misunderstand me. Saying that the response from ‘mainstream britain’ and Christopher Hitchens to the growing radicalization of young Muslims in Britain is different than saying ‘mainstream Britain’ is categorically racist. Simultaneously pointing out how and why Hitchen’s response is unacceptable is neccessary so that he is not able (as he trieds to do in his article) to coopt the criticisms of people like Hanif Qureishi and Monica Ali.
Comment by Aatish — May 25, 2007 @ 12:41 am
I’d be a lot more inclined to get on the “Hate Hitchens” bandwagon if brown people were the only ones who freaked him out. Which isn’t true. He’s pretty polemical in his arguments and has always been that way but it’s pretty clear from his article that he’s presenting himself as the antithesis of the PC stand taken by modern day powers that be in Britain. You may disagree with that but it doesnt mean the argument is entirely without merit, however hard it might be to stomach the tone in which it is written.
And on a lighter note - well, sometimes you need a palate cleanser. Makes you all the more happier to find a kebab joint.
Comment by Amrita — May 28, 2007 @ 3:25 am