Max Ajl: The political philosopher Sayres Rudy lists the steps through which the advocates of the War on Terror craft this new post-Orientalism brand of racism. The updated variety, first, “rejects crude racist caricatures,” second, “emphasizes intra-cultural diversity,” third, “deploys social-anthropological research methods,” fourth, “avoids ahistorical and acontextual abstractions,” fifth, “foregrounds political and economic grievances,” sixth, “lets the Other speak,” and finally, “expresses a reluctant, confused, and evolving sense of the ‘Orient.’”
Politicians and pundits now justify U.S. policy with a new racial logic. The first step is recognizing, as Rudy continues, that “political, economic, and social suffering is ubiquitous and constant.” The second is noting that “Muslims are disproportionately involved in terrorism.” The inescapable “conclusion is that some aspect of Islam turns common grievances into the uniquely anti-humanist ideologies (“apocalyptic nihilism”) and actions (suicidal terrorism) of a deluded and irremediable minority.” Because they are irredeemable, the only possible way of dealing with them is war. Hence the Islamic State group provides a perfect enemy.
The Clash of Civilizations is now passé – at least to talk about. To speak of a singular Muslim civilization is crude. But there is a shared perspective that Muslims have a recurring tendency – no matter its infrequency – to radicalize and birth extremism. In spite of that, broad brush strokes and blatant talk of shutting the doors on Muslims cuts against the grain of current liberal sympathies, which want to absorb Muslims into our nationalist consensus, while continuing to destroy their worlds. The issue is not racism itself, but that Trump makes explicit the racism which is hidden and structural within U.S. policy. More here.