Double Standards of American Bigotry

Expect it is. One slip will cause you an end to your career, but a lifetime of hate against the right people and you'll receive establishment endorsement and the opportunity to have a Ivy League scholarship named after you.

ibn ughzr UgHzR 19672

In American life, Arabs and Muslims remain the sole group which one can openly disparage and cast the most malignant of hatreds against and to do so with impunity if not endorsement.

Consider the case of New Republic owner Marty Peretz. A certified buffoon who is desperate to salvage any sort of legacy. An insane crackpot with a deranged hatred and obsessions with Arabs and Muslims, Palestinians in particular, and a fanatical Zionism that makes Arial Sharon appear to be a dove. This is a man who used his wife's money to purchase the New Republic and because he owns it he can publish himself. Otherwise this individual's writings would never be read expect on some lunatic fringe blog as he descends into senility. The PBS host Jim Lehrer wrote in Peretz as the character "Jonathan Perry", true to form, in his fictional dramatization of Washington "Blue Hearts":

[Perry] was a lightweight sociology professor of no special talent or accomplishment who owned and edited the magazine The New World because his wife was a shoe company heiress who bought it for him. He was a joke in all circles except those that believed money was important.

Perry, what Bruce [Conn Clark] would call a predictable fool's fool, had made himself even more foolish by writing a recent column accusing the producers of talk shows, particularly on public television and radio, of blacklisting him for his strong pro-Israel views. It was an embarrassing incoherence that only the owner of a publication could have brought to public print.

The last reference is to a piece Peretz titled 'Blacklisted' in which he wrote that because he is pro-Israel he is denied access to the mainstream media. Right. Because in America the pro-Israel point-of-view is seldom invited. Here's a glimpse at his deluded self-promotion, narcissism, ego and general pitiful derangement:

"Am I the only writer on the Middle East who has not been invited by PBS or NPR to speak about the Gulf?" Martin Peretz bawls in the April 15 New Republic. "I have a mite more scholarship behind me than, say, Jonathan Schell, who, knowing nothing, is one of NPR's cognoscenti on the region." I can just picture the New Republic editor-in-chief going half-mad from media neglect during the gulf crisis, trundling down 19th Street NW from the magazine's offices to the NPR studios at 2025 M St. at 7 a.m. each weekday, pressing his nose against the glass, and brandishing his latest New Republic column in hopes that Morning Edition's Bob Edwards will wave him in.

"How do I explain this seeming bias of the public media?" the stalwart defender of Israel wonders, inexplicably deriving the general from the specific. "I am reasonably articulate and presentable. There remains the question of my views, and though they may be characterized as, well...definite, they represent my side of the street no more unattractively than others do theirs. But they're enough to keep me off the air." (Ellipsis and italic his.)

Beyond boosting about his own virtues, he's also shamelessly speaks about the important friends he has. He's deeply insecure. And, most sad, he actually thinks he's a writer with wit:

Even a novice booker would recognize that Peretz the thinker and writer works from a limited palette ... he's so enamored of his own wit that he can't resist recycling his previously published punch lines. "If [Amin] Gemayel is a researcher on anything, I am an astronaut," he wrote in the May 8, 1989, New Republic. Six months later, in a dispatch from Paris, he wrote, "[I]f the Palestinians are any closer to actual independence in the West Bank and Gaza than they were a year ago, then I am an astronaut." OK, Marty! OK! You're an astronaut!

But Peretz devotes most of his screeds to bashing Arabs and Muslim. There is racism against Arabs and Muslims in America and then there is Peretz. A many anti-Arab voices will cloth their prejudice with a scholarly veneer or insert the transparent farce of "Of course, I do not believe all Muslims are terrorists," but Peretz does not have time for such indulgences. Instead he blatantly blurts out his hate. His collection is too numerous to recount here in full, a minor retelling will suffice. Former constitutional lawyer and blogger Glenn Greenwald dug up these "gems", first Peretz's posting and then Greenwald's critic:

Peretz: Yes, I know: Muslims are nice cuddly people like the rest of us, the majority of them certainly. The problem is that at this moment in history you have to take the proposition on faith. No, not any particular faith, just faith.

Greenwald's note: So the world is divided into two categories: Muslims and "the rest of us." And while Peretz obligatorily parrots (really, mocks) the notion that Muslims are "nice cuddly people like the rest of us," he tells us that there is actually no evidence to support that claim. Therefore, one can only take it "on faith."

Peretz: Some readers recall my posts about and from Morocco. It is a country I'be (sic) been to twice and a country I like. I've had a soft spot for the Berbers and for Berber culture.

The Berbers had been overwhelmed by Arab armies first in the 7th century, then in the 11th and finally after the 15th when Catholic monarchs of Spain threw the Muslims out of Andalucia. Berber comes from the same root as barbarian. But there is nothing barbarian about the Berbers. Their rugs and and especially their vases are so much more subtle than the glimmery (sic) ornate of their Arab neighbors.

Greenwald's notes: Unlike "their Arab neighbors," Peretz assures us that "there is nothing barbarian about the Berbers." His evidence? The rugs they make are better than the loud, tacky ones which the Arabs churn out.

Peretz: But surely there are tests that could have been taken of Hussein about what makes for evil. A certain level of testosterone combined with certain genes. It's a promising field, these inquiries into the biological origins of cruelty.

Greenwald's notes: The brutality of Hussein was due to "certain genes" and we should examine its "biological origins." Gee, I wonder what he means.

Peretz: We see whom the Palestinians want as their savior. They want Saddam Hussein or, rather, his replica. That's why Palestine will be a wretched society, cruel, belligerent, intolerant, fearing, with no real justice (or justice system), and no internal peace." And what does Peretz think of Iraqis? The same thing, of course:

The Sunnis of Iraq were content with the tyrant's murderous rule. And, now, they must face Shi'a revenge. Which makes Shi'a Iraq also murderous and grotesque.

Dearborne [Michigan] is a largely Shia city, its Muslim population made up largely of Iraqi and Lebanese Shia. When Hezbollah was at war, the hearts of these Shi'a was with Nasrallah. Hate one madman, love another.

Greenwald's notes: So, to recap, the Palestinians and Iraqis (at least the Sunnis and Shias) are collectively "a wretched society, cruel, belligerent, intolerant, fearing, murderous and grotesque." And Peretz's view of Arabs is by no means confined to the Middle East. Arabs are brutal savages wherever they go.

All of the above writings, Greenwald notes, "are all just from the last month or so. Pick any bundle of Peretz posts at random and you will find a series of claims that Arabs and Muslims are primitive and inferior and incapable of being civilized."

And this is a long standing feature of Peretz. In 1981, in the pages of his publication he reprinted a 1600s' Englishman colonial and racist essay on "The Turk" and endorsed it as a "classic" for understanding Muslim behavior. This would be akin to endorsing a 1930s German essay on "The Jew" as a proper guide to Jewish life. And here's a dossier of his prejudice.

But, of course, if anyone did the latter they would rightly be ostracized and widely condemned. But Peretz has been allowed to pronounce his prejudice for decades without any meaningful protest. But, finally, he began to attract criticism after writing this a few day back: But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. . . . So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

After many condemned such words, including the editorial pages of the New York Times, Peretz defended himself by issuing an non-apology apology for the second comment ("I wrote that, but I do not believe that. I do not think that any group or class of persons in the United States should be denied the protections of the First Amendment, not now, not ever.") but defended his more offensive comment about the dispensable nature of Muslim life by stating: "This is a statement of fact, not value." He added, "There is no hatred in my heart." Right. And he's also an astronaut.

Someone with his track record should have been condemned a long while ago, but even in light of his recent statements Peretz is still defended. His apologists write that Peretz is really a big-hearted guy who sometimes gets too passionate in his love for Israel and, in those instances, he just happens to let slip his bigotry against Arabs and Muslims. But he should not be judged by those statements. Think if the logic of these people. Would they ever issue a defense of an anti-Semite like this? That someone is just passionate and should be excused for their prejudice, because after all they are still nice people who do good things. The essence of the statement is that prejudice against Arabs and Muslims is unlike any other and should not be met with the disgust and scorn reserved for other hatred, but instead their proponents should still be allowed polite company and they should not be judged by those comments. Did any of these people who seek to understand and contextualize Peretz ever defend the long career of Helen Thomas? Especially since Thomas did not say anything anti-Semitic, but simply made an admittedly insensitive anti-Zionist remark? No, Thomas was forced to resign amidst widespread condemnation. This is what the Boston Globe wrote about the less inflammatory comments by Thomas:

Helen Thomas, the longest-serving member of the White House press corps, retired abruptly but wisely yesterday after causing an uproar with her bizarre, offensive comments about Israel. . .

Thomas has now apologized for her comments, but they remain a sad coda for a groundbreaking career.

And the Globe on Peretz's recent comments:

Peretz, like some others who’ve been castigated for intolerant views, is more than the sum of his sound bites. ... Despite his sometimes-offensive comments, he should not be treated like a pariah.

For Thomas, her resignation was wise and set the tone for her career in Washington. But, for Peretz, there is much more to the man than his prejudice and therefore his words should not be held against him. No need to resign.

The Globe is not alone. Former employee Andrew Sullivan, who Peretz made editor:

Shafer argues that Marty's loathing of all things Arab and Muslim goes back a very long way. So why the fuss now?

Marty is a man of deep passion and such passion, especially on a subject like the Middle East, sometimes leads to irrationality. He is not immune to this, but neither am I at times. Who is? ... And I, for one, hope this latest spark of hate in a very dry tinder box will not distract from the true content of his character, and the endurance of his legacy of intellectual vigor.

And anti-Semite is only human as well. And what's the big deal?, Peretz after all has been doing this for years so we should be used to, nay acceptable of, it by now. "Very dry tinder box"? Despite writing for the magazine for years, Sullivan is apparently and not surprisingly oblivious to the fact that this "latest spark of hate" is not atypical but a long feature of his Zionist-fueled hatred of Arabs and Muslims. And, as with the Globe, he does not want us to hold Peretz's prejudice against him because it is not the "true content" of the man. What is more reflective of character than the views one holds toward their fellow man? Surely Sullivan would never saw this about a man who said "black life is cheap". In fact when Sullivan was recently accused of being an anti-Semite, incidentally by the New Republic in typical manner due to Sullivan's newfound criticism of Israel, he vigorously defended himself because he knows the charge of prejudice goes to the heart of character and, if not rebuffed, it will destroy someone's credibility and standing. But Peretz need not worry about his anti-Muslim prejudice affecting his standing, because of people like Sullivan who make anti-Muslim prejudice excusable and something that should be seen as mundane and accepted and not reflective of anyone's character, and certainly not held against one. Unlike prejudice against Jews, hate against Muslims does not reflect a moral rot. It's not about character. It really does not matter. No need for defense. After all, Sullivan tells us, people should see beyond it because it's hate, after all, only against those "other" Muslims which makes it, like, kind of okay and understandable. What if Sullivan responded to the accusation of antisemitism by stating: 'see beyond it and recognize that I am also a talented polemicist.'

The Boston Globe and Sullivan are not alone in this white-washing, double-standard, selective indignation trash. But this post is already too long to cite other examples. They all adopt the same theme, anyhow.

His recent comments, however, have arisen at the same time that Harvard is about to bestow a scholarship in his name. Peretz is desperate to leave a legacy as a "thinker" and certainly one at a "prestigious" university. His magazine was bought with his wife's money and its circulation has fallen 40% under his tenure. The name is desperate to become a well-regarded in America, but, alas for him as he whines, he ins't invited to most venues. And he is nearing the end, finally, and is gasping to be a remembered man. So Peretz, as with his purchase of New Republic, thinks he can buy respectable. There is a chair of Yiddish literature, which naturally endows a fanatical and lying Zionist Ruth Wisse, in his name at Harvard and Peretz thinks he can further his legacy by setting up a scholarship also named after him. He likes to drop his own name as well. But his wife and her money have divorced him (hence the increased bitterness with age) and he lost his divorce settlement in the Madoff affair, so he's asking his important friends to fund his effort. And some friends at that!, rushing to fund his bigotry in the Social Studies department. Apparently they were endeared by their Marty becoming more anti-Muslim:

The Harvard Crimson has reported (and I have heard from several other sources) that during this past week's "Muslim life is cheap" controversy, a new flow of donations on Peretz's behalf has come into Harvard. They have increased the total for the fellowship named in his honor from $500,000 to $650,000.

But many people are calling for Harvard to reject the scholarship in the name of tolerance. Principally, the Muslim students on campus who will see a honor bestowed on someone who defames their humanity:

Over 450 have signed an open letter (which includes a choice selection of Peretz’s quotes on not only Arabs and Muslims but also African Americans and Latinos) calling on the university to reconsider, including:

Over 65 social studies alums, 15 social studies staff and faculty, and more than 65 other Harvard alumni and 75 current Harvard students.

Signers from Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences (under which Social Studies falls) as well as the Kennedy School of Government, the Law school, the Business school, the Medical school, the school of Public Health, and the Education school.

The oldest alumni signature is from the class of 1963, and the youngest is from 2010; there is even a parent of a current student who signed on!

Robert Paul Wolff, the first head tutor of Social Studies from 1960-1961 has signed on along with at least 3 other faculty who taught with the program when Peretz was associated with the program.

The following letter was recently delivered to the organizers of the Social Studies 50th Anniversary Celebration:

Dear Professor Tuck and Dr. Bernstein,

We are writing on behalf of the Harvard Islamic Society, Harvard-Radcliffe RAZA, Society of Arab Students and Latinas Unidas. In a recent blog post for The New Republic Martin Peretz, wrote:

“But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imaam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

He had the following to say about Mexicans in another TNR piece:

“Well, I am extremely pessimistic about Mexican-American relations, not because the U.S. had done anything specifically wrong to our southern neighbor but because a (now not quite so) wealthy country has as its abutter a Latin society with all of its characteristic deficiencies: congenital corruption, authoritarian government, anarchic politics, near-tropical work habits, stifling social mores, Catholic dogma with the usual unacknowledged compromises, an anarchic counter-culture and increasingly violent modes of conflict.”

And the Washington Post reported the following remarks Mr. Peretz made about African Americans:

Citing statistics on out-of-wedlock births among blacks, Martin Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, said, “So many in the black population are afflicted by cultural deficiencies.” Asked what he meant, Peretz responded, “I would guess that in the ghetto a lot of mothers don’t appreciate the importance of schooling.” Mfume challenged Peretz, saying, “You can’t really believe that. Every mother wants the best for their children.” Peretz agreed, then added, “But a mother who is on crack is in no position to help her children get through school.” Some in the audience of 2,600 young Jewish leaders hissed at Peretz’s remarks.

We acknowledge Mr. Peretz’s right to hold and express these views, but we are disturbed that he is honored at Harvard University by being invited to speak at the Social Studies Anniversary Celebration on September 25. Such an invitation lends legitimacy and respectability to views that can only be described as abhorrent and racist in their implication that the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution should be withheld from certain citizens based on their religious affiliation.

While the organizers of the Celebration cannot be held accountable for every statement made by its guests, we the undersigned take great exception to Harvard giving such ideas a platform, and we worry that in so doing the University, and the Committee on Degrees in Social Studies in particular, will be alienating a large segment of its student body. In light of these concerns, we respectfully ask that you reconsider having Mr. Peretz as one of the Celebration’s speakers, or at least that he be publicly challenged to defend views that are, in our opinion, indefensible.

Sincerely,

Abdelnasser Rashid, Harvard Islamic Society

Maricruz Rodriguez, Harvard-Radcliffe RAZA

Annissa Alusi, Harvard Society of Arab Students

Beverly Pozuelos, Latinas Unidas

But what does Harvard say?:

The school is proceeding with the event, which celebrates the 50th anniversary of the school’s Social Studies program—as well as the creation of an undergraduate research fund in Peretz’s name. (Some high-profile friends of Peretz’s, including Al Gore, Washington Post editor David Ignatius, and director Edward Zwick, are raising money in parallel to the event.)

But the university sent the following statement to The Daily Beast:

“As an institution of research and teaching, we are dedicated to the proposition that all people, regardless of color or creed, deserve equal opportunities, equal respect, and equal protection under the law. The recent assertions by Dr. Peretz are therefore distressing to many members of our community, and understandably so.

It is central to the mission of a university to protect and affirm free speech, including the rights of Dr. Peretz, as well as those who disagree with him, to express their views.

This just in, as long as he can raise the money, Harvard will endow a research study in the name of David Duke because he is entitled to his free speech to be financed, and affirmed!, by a prestigious university, even though his views are simply "distressing". But no more than "distressing". And free speech now extends to university sponsorship.

And what does the Harvard Crismon say about all this? Same shit: Lots of good can come from this donation, however controversial the figure behind it may be. It would be a shame to discount Peretz’s entire body of work and intellectual contributions due to two unfortunate sentences.

Interesting, here's the Crimson on another matter:

While Harvard depends on the generous donations of its benefactors, nothing is gained from a gift that taints its integrity. The University is right to freeze a $2.5-million donation from Shiekh Zayed Al Nahyan, the President of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), until the full extent of his connection to an extremist think tank that he founded, the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, is brought to light.

Sheikh Zayed made the donation to the Harvard Divinity School (HDS) in 2000 to support the worthy goal of hiring an Islamic studies professor. Unfortunately, it came to light last spring that the Zayed Center has hosted Holocaust deniers and speakers who accuse the United States government of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. The Zayed Center was closed by the UAE in August, but Harvard has put the donation on hold for the coming year, “in view of the evolving situation,” according to a University spokesperson.

Harvard eventually rejected that donation. So when an Arab head of state has a mere connection to a defunct think tank which admittedly hosted anti-Semites and 9/11 conspiracy zealots, even though he did not select the speakers and did not approve of their remarks and served in no official capacity and that think tank has been shut down for its extremism in the name of the same head of state; the Crimson argues that nothing good can come from tainted 'Arab money', that's how they view it, and the university should reject it. And Harvard duly does so.

But when a magazine owner used his pages to attack Arabs and Muslims as primitive, barbaric and tacky people with "cheap" lives for decades - decades!, not just "two unfortunate sentences" as the Crimson's, again not surprisingly in American culture, oblivious writers state - that should not be held against the individual, whose so-called "contributions" should be seen beyond simply "unfortunate" and nothing more than "unfortunate" sentences (and "two" at that!), and - in any case - a lot of good can come from the money "however controversial the figure behind it may be".

But when it comes to an Arab, the Crimson is all of a sudden so principle. The Arab may have a worthy goal, but "nothing is gained from a gift that taints its integrity." No good may come out of it even if, as the Crimson acknowledges, it is a worthy goal. He may do good, but it is still tainted 'Arab money'.

Peretz's own words in a history of prejudice should not be held against him, but an Arab's mere and abstract connection with a shut-down think tank should be the basis to judge him and any good he make seek to do. Even though that Arab is donating in the name of a good cause and has made no personally offensive statements and - for whatever it's worth - is known as a pro-Western leader, the Crimson impugns him and Harvard rejects him. But when it comes to Peretz, his view that Muslim life is "cheap" is simply "distressing" or "unfortunate" and it is not enough for him to be free to write what he wants in the magazine he owns, but his freedom to hate needs to be affirmed in university halls and, after all, a lot of good may come from the money - now they are pragmatic slaves to money - even if the person is "controversial." And notice that prejudice against Muslims is merely "controversial". Are the Holocaust deniers merely "controversial" too?

This episode says so much about American life and the racism against Arabs and Muslims. The standards of American culture. And to think that all this is from the "intellectual" and liberal voices in America and how they value Arabs and Muslims and judge prejudice against them.