What's New About Racism and Religion?

There are times when the Geek wants to quote Mr Natural (note for the chronologically challenged, Mr Natural was an iconic figure from the comix of the late Sixties and early Seventies.) This is one of those times.

The quote?

"Son, I'm a slow man to anger, but, frankly, this rankles my ass!"

Next question, what is rankling the Geek this time around?

Not politics. Not politicians. Not even John Edwards.

This time the Geek is torqued off by the perception, the allegation actually, that has been floating around the mainstream media, portions of the blogosphere, and the United Nations which holds that we in the US are "racist" if we do not accept without question every piece of spittle from Muslim lips as a precious pearl of wisdom.

Right at the giddy-up the Geek wants to make it clear that he has nothing against Islam--nor for it. He avers the same about all other religions as religions.

Until a religious derived ideology has an impact upon international politics, matters of diplomacy, war and peace.

Had the Geek been alive back in the Twenties and Thirties as the Japanese militarists came to power, he would have had no problem with either Shintoism or the code of Bushido. That is until the Japanese used both as the basis for a ethno-religiously derived ideology of regional and even global expansion.

Both Shintoism and the code of Bushido had and have many good points, but like any religious or semi-religious belief system, are ambiguous and easily distorted through situationally driven reinterpretation. That is what happened during the years before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

In the hands of the expansionist oriented ideologues of Tokyo, reinterpretation of old beliefs led to the exultation of the Japanese at the expense of their "little brothers" in the rest of Asia. Beyond that, it led to a warped view of the Western nations, particularly the US and Great Britain.

Get a grip on this.

The ideologues reinterpreted ancient and honorable beliefs to excuse, justify, and rationalise both aggressive, unprovoked war and the gross mistreatment of civilians and military personnel so unfortunate as to fall into their hands.

Not different from the Islamists, is it?

In such official works as Read This Book and The War Is Won, The Way of the Subject, and, issued by War Minister Tojo in 1941, Field Service Code, the Japanese soldier, sailor, and civilian were all assured that a war of expansion through and beyond Asia, a war to "gather the eight corners of the world into the Emperor's house," was a "holy cause."

The soldier was told to live in a spirit of self-sacrifice, austerity, simplicity, honor, and commitment to the Living God. He was told, as was the civilian in the Home Islands, that death would mean eternal life.

Not unlike the Islamists, is it?

In the same official publications as well as those issued by the Ministry of Education and a slew of unofficial or semi-official books and articles, the Americans were portrayed as weak-willed, materialistic, lewd, decadent, exploitative, and, all-in-all, icky-poo, despicable and easy to defeat.

We were excoriated for our treatment of Blacks, Indians, and others. We were held up as the ultimate example of all that is bad, sinful, evil. Our lack of "moral fiber" was commented on repeatedly.

Even Admiral Yamamoto, a man who was fluent in English, had served for years in Washington as the Naval Attache, and had even driven from coast to coast meeting Americans and seeing the industrial strength of the US wrote that since, "...the Americans are merchants. They will not fight a protracted, unprofitable war."

Guess he got that one wrong.

The admiral also wrote that he "hoped with the massive attack on Pearl Harbor to cast the Americans into such despair that they would be unwilling to fight."

Guess he got that one wrong too.

Get a grip on this.

The Japanese were every bit as much racist as are the Islamists today.

Now, get a grip on this.

The Japanese were blinded to the real American temperment by their religiously derived racist ideology as are the Islamists today.

It is an interesting and important exercise to place the writings of the Japanese from seventy-five years ago alongside those of Islamists ranging from Qtub to bin Laden. The Islamists could have lifted the Japanese justifications for a holy war as well as their critique of the Americans nearly word for word.

(Hint to intelligence analysts: This comparison is relevant to understanding both strengths and weaknesses of today's Islamist adversaries. It is also relevant to appreciating the appeal of faith derived political ideologies.)

It is important to recognise that not all Japanese were willing, let alone eager, to die for the Emperor's crusade. It is important to acknowledge that the heavy emphasis placed by the militarists of Tokyo upon sacrifice and solidarity in the holy war was propaganda intended to enhance the coherence of the Japanese public in support of the war.

Similarly, it is critical to separate Islam from the Islamist ideology. Not only must we in the US and the West generally do this, so also must Muslims. Muslims must realise that most, if not all, the Islamist tracts are intended as propaganda intended to unify Islam behind the Islamist ideology and its practitioners. A believer in Islam who is not an adherent of the Islamist ideology must stand up and say so.

At the least, the Muslim who is not an Islamist must cease proclaming how offended he is by defining Western practices and values such as freedom of expression. Every single time that a Muslim objects to basic freedoms in the West, every single time he screams, "Racism" because someone somehow somewhere does something he finds offensive, he has joined the Islamist movement.

The Geek would suggest to Doudou Diene, the UN special rapporteur on racism and others of similar mind that the West with its freedoms of expression, belief, and dissent are not the racists. No. It is the Islamists like the Japanese expansionists of seventy-five years ago who deserve that designation.

Racism whether of the assertive sort as shown by the Japanese and Islamist ideologues or the passive version of paternalistic hyper-sensitivity exhibited by Mr Diene, is counterproductive. Assertive racism results in its own destruction as shown by World War II.

Passive racism, to the contrary, results in surrender. The active racists of Islamism have forced us into a new Cold War. Surrender is not an option.

Get a tight grip on this! Calling an Islamist with the gleam of conquest in his eye and a bomb under his shirt a racist is not Islamophobia--it's just the truth.