The Paper II

Draft ~ First Ten Pages (five single spaced) : Immigrants and Refugees: The Future of Walls

Mac Crary for Prof. Secilia

April 7, 2016

 

In an article about Diane Arbus, a photographer of marginal persons who died in 1971 at her own hand, Louis A. Sass says that Jean Baudrillard, a French sociologist, describes the post-modern mind “as a new form of schizophrenia:  the person having lost all sources of passion or direction, or of personal individuality, and all motivation for introspection, comes to be little more than a “switching center for all the networks of influence,”” (1).  Although he does not say this, for that to happen the individual would have to become an active agency in switching off interjections from conscience or personal curiosity, working instead to master the juggling act of accommodating positions from their parameter comfortable to their power center.  In another note, a group of medical sociologists in Germany wrote about grueling working conditions and health decline in positions available to freelance media workers.  They describe a society where “the steady growth of non-standard work contracts, increasing instability and flexibility and rapid technological change may have far-reaching effects on health and well-being.”  Specifically, “people on fixed-term contracts, contingent and temporary work and the self-employed may suffer from the consequences of increased flexibility and decentralization (Bussing & Glasser, 1998; Thorell 1996).  The media industry belongs to the sectors that are most intensely hit by these developments.”  (2)

Together these observations depict a post-modern world in which the mind is trained to be versatile at accommodation, swept into circumstances that require intensely rigorous, competitive self-definition or discovery of new ways to exploit a power center.  The saving grace in such an arrangement is a public unwilling, unable and disinterested in seeing the labors of influential media, both mainstream and independent, from exercising practical deviation from their standard scripts, pitches and entries.  What were once called “ink devils” presumably on the prowl for the truth, are now understood as navigators of acceptability and useful scandal.  The pace of technological change in other words, and what was once called “future shock” still has to cater to a consumer base that graciously accepts what is offered, provided it plays to their grasp.  Readers are not immune to this upheaval.  Media burnout, that is to say, has an ally in a society that doesn’t really understand what is going on and therefore cannot identify when what they are told is wrong, any more than those charged with explaining can find time to research, or the autonomy needed to bring comprehension to the table.  All concerned would certainly deny this and find it insulting, even though it is in the interests of everyone concerned to admit that freelance reporting, where independence of judgment is at stake, is also besieged  by hardship that makes the labor involved very forbidding.

While the most important industry for alternative views and forum to challenge mainstream opinions, independent journalism is also the least likely place for writers to develop the powerful research skills needed to vie publicly with established journals playing misleading tunes or successfully show when a powerful voice is being unreasonable, or lying.  Freelance writers, once also known as stringers, are caged by extremely difficult circumstances and subject to greater access by agencies hostile to freedom of the press, including their rivals or overlords in mainstream media.  This creates a particularly serious problem when it comes to affairs in Arabia, towards which there is a lot of ignorance, bigotry, hysteria and a past of misleading information.  It is my goal in this note to help you understand what you are being denied an opportunity to by available media.

The art of Diane Arbus concerns subjects of deformity, mongoloids, individuals with mental illness and Downs Syndrome.  As she became enthralled with these images her mental health deteriorated leading to suicide, leading some critics to suspect she began identifying with her subject matter and internalized stigma.  As we are inundated with false ideas about the cataclysm in Arabia that has lurched from Cold War stalemate and  low-intensity conflict, into mass  exodus, starvation,  rivers of blood and threats of a  dirty bomb in a climate of shocking terrorism, we begin to identify ourselves within the  mess, trying to navigate the post-modern morass while ourselves on the receiving end of powerful media misrepresentation and alternative media burnout.  This swirl of mongoloid opinions affects our self-esteem, leading to apathy, coldness and cynicism.

The situation is even worse in Arabia, who know next to nothing about the true character of our people in the United States.  This paper cannot do anything but open the smallest door into understanding how the absence of viable independent media in Arabia affects the judgment of those in catastrophic straits, which is not my goal.  We do, however, have a legal obligation to help them, and towards this ends, I will present a sketch of what has happened and what tools are available to begin civil remedies.  Our legal structure is central to this mission, but it cannot be engaged successfully without the necessary background, and this project may not always be overly welcome among those who have brought us to this pass of our own making.

It is easier to discuss danger than paradox. For example, America is at war in the Middle East and been targeted with shocking attacks of terrorism. There is a danger of a dirty bomb against one of our cities, or devastating attack on one of our exposed and vulnerable nuclear plants, whether by foreign or domestic terrorist like Timothy McVeigh. Events in Fukushima, Japan have spelled out that natural calamity alone could result in catastrophe, just as Chernobyl gave witness to the pulverizing misfortune of human error. Large scale cataclysm, short of being fatal to the human species, probably would not conquer The United States of America. There is no terrorist syndicate or nation with sufficient manpower and artillery to both bomb and conquer America. Though daunting, the potential for disaster cannot be the guiding light for our attempts to maintain civilization and live by objective legal standards. It’s not being excessively cheerful to say that we must maintain a sense of enthusiasm for the procedures of education and dreams of Our Commonwealth in light of adversity and fear.

Paradox is at the root of arbitration concerning the fate of democracy in a world where there are Islamic nations. While it is possible to imagine a post-Fundamentalist world where legal institutions are in place everywhere that protect the dignity and human right of all individuals to live by their own private beliefs concerning religion and skepticism, that is not yet the case internationally. Further, the day of reconciliation may be far away. The article I am embarked on is motivated by a feeling at my school that research into the situation that has developed between America and Arabia, particularly the catastrophe in Syria, and appeal for asylum by refugees in the context of a country divided by controversy regarding illegal immigration, is called for and timely. It is too easy to forget, in light of public opinion barrages caused by dizzying news reports of sudden, unexpected violence in crowded public areas, that politics are not just an acid test of rival pressure groups proclaiming loud public opinions, but a problem of legal review and law enforcement. Accordingly, a sociological approach to understanding U.S.-Islamic relations in light of current affairs has to be comprehensive enough to explain confusion and misperception concerning jurisdiction and International Law. It is a matter of peace keeping and criminology. War, unfortunately, can be easier or at least simplifies, questions involving intelligence gathering necessary for capable diplomacy. Attacking Islamic society simply because of differences in our legal systems is a sinister gyration that oversteps reasonable exercise of American power. Hatred for Sharia Law and Islam is powerful enough, however, that I begin with this dreadful mindset.

Nothing is more well-known concerning academic disapproval of Islamic Law than its enforced oppression of women and punishment of atheism. This tendency in Arabia seems silly and backwards to all but the most determined. This paper will explore this problem, but first look into the mirror of our own heritage to comprehend the paradoxical situation and perhaps see how the unlooked for and seemingly unlikely prospect of Islamic cooperation can help us prevent self-regard that too readily gives rise to narcissism.

 

  1. Nativism in America
  2. Chinese Immigration Laws
  3. Opposition to Illegal Immigrants
  4. What Brings Immigrants
  5. The Proposal for a Wall

 

Sharia Panic

When thinking of the Middle East as blameworthy, many Americans conceptualize the evolution of trouble there as an expression of government under Sharia Law committed to control of the population through Theological Empire and religious extremism. It is as if the Middle East lives in a world much like America would be if Cotton Mather, who led the Salem Witch Hunts, had become not only President of Harvard, which he father was, but President of the United States and that in this imaginary world the Confederacy had won the Civil War. A CIA analyst of interest in this paper named Graham E. Fuller authored a book about Iran titled: The Center of the Universe. If indeed this is how Islamic Theological governments do see themselves, then we must wryly conclude, among other things unworthy, that there is a slave auction block at the center of the universe, for human trafficking is alive and well in the Middle East, intensified by the cataclysmic civil wars that rose from the crush in the wake of Arab Spring.

April 6, 2016, which was yesterday at the time of this writing, was the day that the first Syrian family was relocated in the United States under a special accelerated program in cooperation with Jordan that allowed Ahmad al-Abboud,his wife and five children from Homs, Syria, to resettle in Kansas City, Missouri after three years in exile from the civil war.   Despite the clear victory for those who recognize our duty and the humanity of the refugees, Governors of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, have all spoken out in defiance of Federal authority vowing never to allow refugees in their states. Our allies in Europe, by contrast, are absorbing millions of refugees in an enormous crisis.

The stage was set in America by a movement that has long blamed immigrants for the woes of America’s working class in hard times. Public support for refugees is divided and both sides vigorous, outspoken, loud. Diya Abdo, an associate professor of English at Guilford College has started a program called: Every Campus a Refuge, asking “every college and university around the world to host at least one refugee family on their campus grounds and assist them in resettlement,” according to Chronicle of Higher Education last December (2015).

In his book, Sufi Essays, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, arguing a polemic favoring Sharia Law over modernist trends towards secularism, cites the ancient history of Islamic legal scholars in the establishment of comity and moderation between foreign countries under a Muslim understanding of International Law. This idea does not sit well with everyone concerned. Comity between countries is voluntary deference to court rulings originating in other countries. An online article in Commentary Magazine by Tim Wilson from 2014 titled: Britain’s Worsening Sharia Creep argues that the United Kingdom’s Law Society in their prestigious guidelines advising attorneys to help them word their legal terms regarding inheritance practices to discriminate against children considered illegitimate under Islamic Law who would normally be recognized as heirs in British courts. There is a profound fear that tragedy which is absolutely wrong and does not need to happen could be a consequence not of terrorism but of the shadow of improper values exerting undue influence over civil society.

Yuliya Zeynalova, arguing for Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Vol. 36: 153, 2013) sees the shadow of wariness concerning as a more comprehensive political condition. She writes, “A number of factors have led to this pervasive fear and distrust of Muslims and Islamic Law, including military conflicts (particularly those regarding oil), sour diplomatic relations with several predominantly Muslim countries and a misunderstanding of differences between belief structures.” (p. 154)   In another article by Sarah M. Fallon titled: Justice for All: American Muslims, Sharia Law and Maintaining Comity Within American Jurisprudence Salam Al-Marayati is quoted as calling the lack of acceptance of Muslims “a psychological ghetto” in which they live. Zeynalova states, “Shunning any group tends to create a feeling within that group of exclusion from the broader society.” Fallon states, “Sharia bans violate the voluntary but long-standing principle of comity, which encourages courts to defer to foreign laws where such laws do not prejudice the power or right of the U.S. government or its citizens.” Such recognition applies only to Civil Law, never Criminal Law.

Fueling this controversy is fear that Arab Spring may give an opening not only to Islamic moderates like the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda Movement, both of which I will explain to you in the course of this paper and their role in the post-Arab Spring crisis, but also to Islamic Black Flag extremists, a development that is critical to knowing what American High Command has really done with our so-called good intentions. There is a stubborn belief among those who study and practice the law that International Law is of no use whatsoever because it cannot be enforced by police power.   Events beyond the reach of Law Enforcement, it is advised, do not amend themselves to wishful thinking. If Islamic moderates displace secular governments where they exist Constitutionally, such as Tunisia, where Arab Spring began, a tale I will tell to you in the course of this paper, then the stage is set for a major setback to our ideals concerning tolerance for minority beliefs under and objective legal system.

Not everyone agrees however, that International Law is rendered impossible to enforce by absence of coercion. In an article in Yale Law Review by Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro, titled: Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law argue, “the coercion used to enforce the law need not involve the threat and exercise of violence. Rather, it may involve the threat of exclusion, or as we call it, outcasting. Unlike the distinctive method that modern states use to enforce their law, outcasting is nonviolent: it does not rely on bureaucratic organizations, such as police or militia, that employ physical force to maintain order.” In other words the very forces that give rise to discontent leading to movements like Arab Spring function in conformance with the exercise of opprobrium jeopardizing acceptance of ridiculous or extremists regimes when they practice religious oppression. “Disobedience need not be met with the law’s iron fist – enforcement may simply involve denying the disobedient the benefits of social cooperation and membership.” Clearly, such outcasting does not mean refusing acceptance of refugees from countries in turmoil, quite the opposite. It is the influence of inclusion despite the trauma and gravity of extreme situations, that lifts Muslim refugees out of the psychological ghetto and brings them to safety in a Commonwealth of mutual learning and self-respect.

Alexander Klassen, in his article: Islamism and Democracy in New Arab Democracies writes, “Using Ruth Grant’s moralism/moderation and hypocrisy/integrity ethical framework,” “insight into the political decision making” of Ennahda Party and the Muslim Brotherhood in their sincerity concerning for example women’s rights will inform the acceptance or outcasting by the International community.   The anger of Western women towards Islamic oppression of women is intense and very real, but we need to measure this progress against the development of worst case environments. The rights of women are not being advanced, and women are not being liberated by driving them into the hands of ISIS and Boko Harem, gangs of terrible violence and cruelty, whose power and orientation I will describe in this note.

Don Mason, a professor at the Community College of Allegheny County stated in a talk about supporting the anti-Immigration Presidential campaign of Donald Trump: A. That regions of the United States affected by illegal immigrants are “a different world,” from the one known in East Coast cities were opposition to the proposed wall is strong. B. That the Public doesn’t have the Right to Know what Security forces are doing to protect the public. C. That we have to accept that competent men are at work in High Command. The question I raise in this paper is whether if they are such competent men in High Command why did they want to conjure and bring about this catastrophic outcome. To learn about this situation, we need to turn away from the Middle East briefly and focus instead on what brings Illegal Immigrants across our borders. Both Syrian refugees and Illegal Immigrants are, from one point of view, coming here to flee us where draconian military actions of de-stabilization are at work in their own homelands. While this is also disputed, the reader needs to be informed about the social history of so-called “friendly dictators” in both regions, narco-fascism and its police state sponsors, murder of dissent practiced with the authority of Supreme Court decisions that I will present concerning disregard of Constitutional Rights in foreign countries by intelligence agents, and the presence of Islamofascism in the Middle East. Narco-fascism and Islamofascism have fascism in common. Rumor of fascism in U.S. High Command can only be taken as seriously to the degree that it is proven.

 

 

The Women’s Movement in Arabia

Epigram:

Acknowledging that oppression still exists among US subcultures        

                       Allows the coping skills developed by Iranian women over the ages

                      To be appreciated, emulated and admired for the cultural treasures

                      They are.

 

Bibilography Items

 

  1. “Hyped on Clarity”: Diane Arbus and the Postmodern Condition
  2. By Louis A. Sass, Raritan, Rutgers University, P. 5
  3. Adverse psychosocial working conditions and subjective health in freelance media workers; Michael Ertel, Eberhard Pech, Peter Ullsperger, Olaf Von Dem Knesebeck, Johannes Siegrist
  4. Work and Stress, July-September 2005, P. 1-2
Advertisements