Cordoba and The Alamo

Who decides what symbols mean?

Another dimension of Park51 or the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' which is neither mosque nor at Ground Zero, for the record.

800px raphael school of athens OPYt4 19672

Newt Gingrich recently had the temerity to tell Muslims what their appropriated symbols means.

Gingrich - haughtily pseudo-historian that he is - recently said that the name of the proposed Islamic community center is an affront because it symbolizes an Islamic triumphalism in its celebration of the conquest of Christian Spain.

Referring to the southern Spanish city of Cordoba (or, more accurately, spelled Cordova) which was the seat of the Islamic empire in Spain/Portugal (al-Andalus), the former and disgraced House Speaker said that the name Cordoba House is meant to behold a doctrine of Islamic supremacy over Jews and Christians.

The arrogance of Gingrich is breathtaking. By what right does he have to tell people what their symbols means? The name Cordoba House is not a remembrance of Islamic subjugation of Christians and Jews or even of the Islamic conquest per se, but a rejoice in the days when Muslim Spain offered Muslims, Christians and Jews a relative sanctuary of tolerance and peace and where great works of scholarship and poetry were written. Muslim scholars Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd both lived in Cordoba alongside one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history Maimonides. Cordoba, for Muslims and many others, is a symbol of co-existence, tolerance and the human mind at its best. The very name is a bridge between Islam and the West. A Muslim city in a Christian continent. And a center where Islamic scholars greatly influenced Christian and Enlightenment thinkers. Ibn Rushd, known in Latin as Averroes, was the link between classical Hellenism and the Enlightenment. So much so that when the celebrated Renaissance painter Raphael unveiled his immortal fresco 'The School of Athens' (1510) he placed none other than the Muslim Ibn Rushd between the two greatest thinkers in Western civilization Aristotle and Plato in a reflection and upholding of the legacy of Islamic philosophy: Its unassailable standing in the West and its spark that helped bequeath the Renaissance. This is what Cordoba stands for. And when Muslims celebrate it, they are celebrating this and only this.

But Gingrich, who also took time to compare Muslims to Nazis, is oblivious to all this and its meaning to Muslims. And, arrogant zealot that he is, thinks he can just stand from on high and from far away declaim what Muslims think and what they believe. All without ever venturing to learn actual history and to actually ask them. But that is the mindset of a racist: simply attributing nefarious schemes and malicious smears against innocent people who mean no such harm or offense.

But the point of this post - as given in the title - is that it is an irony that Gingrich would seek to reduce Cordoba's symbols to solely the Islamic conquest of Christian lands and to the admittedly second-class status reserved to Jews and Christians. Never mind, that there is no wrong in Islamic conquest. Are Muslims not entitled to engage in the conquest of lands? To paraphrase Karl Marx: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of conquest. Or do anti-Muslim zealots like Gingrich think that only Christians are allowed to engage in (far more bloody) conquest and colonization and that only Zionists and Israelis are allowed to celebrate the conquest of lands? Conquest is simply a matter of history. And Muslims need not apologize unless Christians will also apologize for their conquests of lands and unless the American political establishment, which never tires of celebrating the Zionist colonization of Palestine, will apologize to the Palestinians. And the second-class status accorded to non-Muslims in Muslim lands was infinitely superior to the status accorded to non-Christians in Christian lands. When Muslims established sovereignty over Spain they did not expel Jews or Christians, but when the Conquistadors were finally successful in ending Muslim rule one of their first acts was to force Jews and Muslims the choice of either conversion to Christianity or expulsion. Granted, the unequal status then is not a liberal order today. But at the time it was an unrivaled abode of tolerance and peaceful co-existence. So Muslims need not make apologies here either.

But, back to the point of symbols, Gingrich seeks to reduce Cordoba to an Islamic conquest (which he prejudicially and selectively always deems bad). He would have it that Muslims are not allowed to celebrate any symbols that may be tied to conquest even if they choose to emphasize other aspects solely because of the conquest connection. But what about America? It is not only Christendom and Zionism which has conquered lands, but American settlers under the maxim of 'Manifest Destiny'. Think of all the symbols which stand for American conquest. Few are more potent, if any, than the Texas Alamo. The Alamo is celebrated in American folklore as a symbol of American patriotism when American settlers held the compound for several days against for more numerous Mexicans. American school children are told to celebrate the Alamo in the name of American freedom and liberty and perseverance. But what exactly is the Alamo?

thealamo q2VNx 19672

The people fighting for freedom and liberty where the Mexicans not the usurping Americans settlers who came to the land not to live as equals with the Mexicans, but instead to grow in numbers and then finally claim the land for America in an act of theft against the Mexicans which they saw as inferiors. The Mexicans at the Alamo were trying to preserve their nation against settlers believing they had a God-given right to take the land simply because they viewed themselves as having God's blessing - 'Manifest Destiny' - and being a superior stock of humans. And, yet, this blatant act of grotesque imperialism has been turned by American culture into an act of patriotism to be glorified as one of the nation's finest moments when ostensible American underdogs held back the Mexicans who - would you imagine? - had the temerity to resist the theft of their land. On a side note: If you can understand the arrogance of the American mentality which justifies this act, overlooks its injustice and celebrates it as an noble act of patriotism then you can better understand the same impulse that cheers Zionism.

Now Gingrich - super-patriot that he is - would be loath to ever denounce 'The Alamo'. Now many Mexicans naturally do. And how do you suppose Gingrich would respond if Mexicans were to ever condemn America for appropriating as a symbol a blatant act of conquest of their country? Gingrich would probably first dismiss them - them being awful and brown Mexicans and all - and then (and I am being generous in bestowing decency, thoughtfulness, courtesy, eloquence and just general thinking skills to him here) lecture them about how symbols may mean different things to different people and that while 'The Alamo' does symbolize the conquest of Mexican lands from the indigenous people, for many Americans they choose to emphasize instead the American ideal of pioneers setting out into distant lands and - against all odds - seeking to build a new world. And 'The Alamo' adds the imaginary of patriotic and God-fearing Americans so committed to expanding the horizon of their nation that they took their lives in a suicide mission in deciding to stand "their ground" (it wasn't theirs) and fight for America rather than back down. That represents American patriotism, unceasing commitment and the Manifest Destiny/Pioneer ideal. The Mexicans would naturally and justifiably roll their eyes at the notion of making imperialism sound romantic, but Gingrich would stand his ground that a symbol may often represent virtue even if its actual act and beginning was quite ignominious.

Cordoba House is the same thing. But the American-type of Newt Gingrich often fail to offer the same level of understanding and decency that he so readily accords to himself. This is why he would have it that America - a nation that conquered an entire continent - is entitled to its symbols of conquest, but Muslims not to theirs. Their view is that America is 'special' and should be allowed to do things and get away with them while others not. Only America can - part of the maxim of American Exceptionalism.

But for those who think honestly, surely you can understand that just as the Alamo should not be reduced in the imagination of Americans to just imperialism and that Americans need not stop visiting the shrine, Muslims are also only upholding the values of virtue in declaiming Cordoba and their celebration of that history should be regarded with esteem and respect for the celebration of the best in man.