[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
That’s certainly something that can be done, but how can it be brought about? How can we, as a society, be convinced that this is necessary? I’m sure there are some people who already think as you do, but how would you go about convincing everyone else (including me)?
[/QUOTE]
I wish I knew the answer to that. I’ve tried on these boards, which is a high bar as it leans left, and am repeatedly dismayed at the default position, one I see as being of of apologies for the larger group and excuses to not do a damn thing. But one of your next questions highlights a problem that I thiink can be discussed more critically.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
If your argument is that Muslims overall are more likely to be worth suspicion of violent extremism than some other groups, I think I might agree. But what about Muslims in America? I haven’t seen any statistics on this, but I would like to see numbers on how many Muslims in my own country commit crimes again in my own country. I would imagine that the comparative percentage is probably roughly the same as any other group.
[/QUOTE]
I think this gets to one of the problems. Merely characterizing terrorist acts as general “crimes” doesn’t allow us to develop tools in combating them that could be as efefective as possible. The analogy I use is the history of organized crime in the U.S., particulalry as it applpied to The Mafia. By treating each and every crime committed by it’s members the same as the same crime as if committed by someone not of the Mafia we were only able to get so far. But we were able to be much more effective when we treated them as part of a larger organized enterprise. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, we finally were able to be succesful against organized crime when we developed the RICO statutes (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
As far as percentages of Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activities, I too assume the number is low. But we should work for zero. The cost of each act is too high.
As far as other groups committing terroist acts in the U.S., the ones the apologists attempt to drag out are 1) Timothy McVeigh (one guy and his buddy) and 2)the attacks on abortion doctors and clinics. This rings truer, but they are a fringe group(s) who, if you added all their muderous attacks together don’t come near resulting in a tenth of the life lost in even one of the planes going down on 9/11.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Put another way; if we’re talking Muslim politicians, how many have proposed unpleasant measures, how many have enacted them, how many have extremist ideaologies, how many are corrupt or been involved in scandals? Then compare that number to the number of Christians or Jews or atheists or whoever. Who’s done the most damage percentage-wise?
[/QUOTE]
This really doesn’t apply here yet, as we are just starting to get Muslim politicians. In fact the first one was just elected to the House of Representatives in 2006.
But you raise another issue that I think portray the situation in a way that makes it tempting to throw up our hands. It is not just the amount damage done by these different groups, it is the type, as well. If, say, Christians were found to, on a percentage basis even, be reponsible for more crimes, and those crimes were across the board, then I don’'t think we shold do anyhting except be more vigilant against crimes in general. But if that same group were disproportionately responsible for a particular flavor of crime, then I think extra scrutiny would be meritted. Do I think that Italians meritted more scrutiny in the '30s, '40s, and '50s? Absolutley. Organized crime was largely run by Italians. Would that have treated my parents and grandparents unfairly? I don’t think so. Does that mean all Italians were complicit in organized crime. Of course not. In fact, if I was an up and comer back then and had nothing to do with organized crime I would have welcomed as much scrutiny as possible.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I really doubt that it’s going to turn out to be Muslims either over here or there, for the simple reason that people are already more suspicious of them to start off with. Ah, but that didn’t come about just by saying “Excuse me, would you mind not using that word?”. I’m too young to have lived through it being widespread, but it seems like it followed a very long period of intolerance leading to tolerance. People certainly went out to try and change the minds of others, but what really seemed to be the key was in the general progress of understanding and raising a new generation with that understanding from birth.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, a new generation unencumbered by old baggage and bad habits does help, but it is not necessary. People can change. People can be told “Hey, wait, look what you’re doing? That’s wrong. Can’t you see that?” When the thing trying to be corrected is a righteous as ending racism, the argument carries a lot of weight and will be adopted more often more readily.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And besides, I can’t speak for yourself, but i’m not exactly the most prestiguous person. Who’s going to listen to me?
[/QUOTE]
I think you sell yourself short. You’re generally liked and respected on these boards I’d say. My guess is that it’s the same in your real life. I think you can help society adopt wiser attitudes in both fora. If I’ve caused you think a little differently about this subject than I’ve helped my cause. If you do the same (for whatever you believe), you’ve helped that particular cause. No change will be immediate. Especially when that change opposes the grain of political correctness.
Just make sure to use your powers for good.
People can change, yes, but they have to want to change or they have to have enormous peer pressure. Whether the argument is righteous or not doesn’t matter because righteousness is a point of view. In their eyes, using racist-term-of-the-week is the right thing. I still think it’s mostly a matter of a new generation coming up, with the more stubbourn-minded bigots being gradually surrounded by more and more people who think they’re wrong, until finally they either end up genuinely agreeing or acting like they do (which itself continues the trend).