The controversial hearings of the Homeland Security Committee is titled, "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response." Only a couple of hours old now, it has already produced fireworks.
Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn), the first Muslim-American elected to Congress, gave powerful testimony that was both rational and emotional. The CNN anchors giving commentary referred to it as "amazing." Ellison was rational in that he challenged the focus of the hearings as stigmatizing and scapegoating the entire Muslim community -- beginning with the title itself -- and by public comments leading up to the hearings (an obvious reference to Chairman King's widely publicized comments).
Ellison pointed out the many examples of terrorism in U.S. history, some of which were associated with a particular religion -- the first example being the KKK with its frequent invoking the Christian church. Yet the entire Christian community has never been blamed for the KKK. And no hearings have been held to explore how the Christian community has responded to the KKK's terrorism.
Ellison became emotional (and it had a powerful effect) in describing the life and death of Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23 year old Muslim-American firefighter from Queens, who died saving others on 9/11. This young man was quintessentially American in his interests, liking "Star Wars" and having his own car. He was working as a research assistant at Rockefeller University and driving an ambulance part time.
And yet, because he was identified as Muslim, many people spun theories that he had been involved in the attacks -- instead of honoring his sacrificing his own life trying to save victims. Rep. Ellison became tearful at this point -- and it made his testimony extra powerful as he conveyed what such stigmatizing stereotyping feels like.
Other Democratic members of the committee also irately challenged the narrow focus of the hearings. They were critical mainly of the way Chairman King slanted the hearings with his title, his tone, and advance misstatements in speaking about the hearings, and his selection of witnesses.
Rep. Cedric Richmond was particularly effective in suggesting the hearings that could have been held -- to focus on "terrorism" and the recruitment of young men into radicalism -- rather than making the focus on the Muslim community and its "lack of cooperation" with law enforcement and security investigations.
Witnesses included two fathers of young men lost to the coercive tactics of recruitment and terrorism training, hoping to contribute to understanding that would help prevent other young men being radicalized. Theirs were emotional stories as well. And I will say that the sherrif from LA County, and the doctor/intellectual who spoke about his Muslim life and community, were impressive witnesses. Theirs were reasonable, mostly balanced points.
After listening to both sides, I would suggest that it could have been more useful -- and avoided some of the angst -- if the hearings had focused on: What makes the difference in the young man described by Rep. Ellison and the young men who are susceptible to radicalization. You could add in the young American men who become radicalized by other religious and non-religious groups. "Terrorism in America" and how our young people get caught up in it could be the topic of discussion.
I strongly recommend watching Rep. Ellison's testimony.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/keith-ellison-tears-up-muslim-hearings_n_833981.html
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Late in the hearings, Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) asked the pertinent question of the two fathers of young recruits:
ReplyDeleteWhat are the conditions or situations that cause radical leaders to think that they can be successful in recruiting young men to join the radicalism?
One of the men answered: 90% of the young men recruited are from single mom families, who have no father or mentor to guide them; they are usually young men who are intelligent and who have not been in trouble; and they are young men who come from an ethnic background who could easily fit into the training groups. (I'm not sure I got this last point exactly right.)
Actually, I think the hearing has been useful. If only it had been framed differently by a chairman who was more sensitive to the nuance of words and labels and to the feelings of a group that has been stigmatized by their religion.
In that last line, I meant: "stigmatized by their religious affiliation" or rather "stigmatized because of their religion."
ReplyDelete