Radicalism is spurred by nationalism more than religion: Fatima Bhutto

Radicalisation, alienation and belongingness – these are the main themes of Fatima Bhutto’s new novel, The Runaways. The novel traces the lives of three young people – Anita, Monty and Sunny – who escape their lives in Pakistan and run away to Iraq during the ascent of the Islamic State.

Photo by Paul Wetherell

Fatima Bhutto is the author of a book on poetry, two works of non-fiction, including her memoir Songs of Blood and Sword, and now, two works of fiction. In an interview with The Wire, she talks about why she was drawn towards the lives of radicalised young people, and why she believes they “need to be treated with compassion before they make these terrible mistakes.”

The main theme of your book is radicalisation. Was it the sudden rise of ISIS that drew you to the subject – or was it developments closer to home, in Pakistan, because of which so many Pakistanis have suffered?

Fatima Bhutto: I write because I am disturbed by something enough that it doesn’t let go of me. I am 36 years old, so I remember a time before the ‘war on terror’ had subsumed everything – when the colour of my passport or my religion wasn’t a ticking threat to most people. But a generation of young people have come of age under this oppressive shadow.

Pakistanis have certainly suffered. What can you say to the fathers and mothers of those boys whose blood covers this country? What can you say to Aitzaz Hasan’s family? He was killed protecting 2,000 fellow students from a suicide bomber, using his body as a shield. I am heartbroken that such a sacrifice is paid by the young and the innocent over and over again.

The West doesn’t understand the pain of the non-western world. They have constructed a completely false narrative about radicalism, which conveniently excuses their wars, their occupations, from any role in its creation. You write a novel for many reasons, these are just a few of the things that were on my mind when I sat down to start.

The three protagonists come from different economic and religious backgrounds. Do you believe that a rich Muslim teen today is just as prone to Islamic radicalisation as a poor Christian girl like Anita?

Fatima Bhutto: I wouldn’t call it ‘Islamic’ radicalism at all. Look at the world today – radicalism isn’t the exclusive property of one people or one religion. Young people are vulnerable to anger and violence all over the world.

Radicalism is a reaction spurred by nationalism more than any religious belief – studies have shown this to us again and again. A University of Chicago professor studied every case of suicide terrorism in the early 2000s and found that they were motivated by political beliefs, not religious ones. Look at the 28-year-old terrorist who killed fifty people in New Zealand – it was politics and his hateful interpretation of nationalism that motivated his violent actions.

The stories of your three main characters are very similar to that of Shamima Begum, the British teenager who chose to join the Islamic State. Many in the UK opposed her right to return, saying she didn’t deserve any form of amnesty. In the ‘Runaways’, Sunny is aware of the extreme nature of his decisions, but voluntarily chooses the same path that Shamima did. What do you think is the right way to deal with these young people?

Fatima Bhutto: Look, Shahmima Begum was born in Britain, raised in Britain, educated in Britain and radicalised in Britain. Britain is a part of her journey towards the catastrophic decision she made to run away.

How can it wipe its hands off her? She is a citizen and she has rights. They have a responsibility to try her if she has committed a crime and to rehabilitate her and understand why this happened in the first place.

How is a 15-year-old allowed to board an international flight without a passport? Where were the adults, the authorities to ask, ‘Where are you going?’. I understand she has expressed regret, and she has lost three children before they could walk and talk – I think she has suffered the incredible error of her choices.

These young people, lonely and angry enough to turn against the world, need to be treated with compassion before they make these terrible mistakes. In Sunny’s case in ‘The Runaways’, it’s not the first choice he makes. He tries to find a place, a community that will absorb and understand him but he doesn’t find it. That’s partly why he makes his terrible choice.

Sunny’s incapable local Imam, who fails to see the signs, Anita’s poverty due to the structure of capitalism, and the West’s ‘war on terror’ (described through one character’s arguments)— are these the main reasons that radicalise young people today?

Fatima Bhutto: I think they are a huge part of why young people are so vulnerable today. It’s not religion. That’s what the talking heads in the West keep telling us but they have no experience of what it means to be a Muslim, let alone any actual understanding of Islam.

The West’s war on terror has been hypocritical and it’s been phenomenally bloody. Look at any Western country today – what are they talking about? Migration. They’re terrified of outsiders, but why? These are countries that colonised the world for hundreds of years – hundreds – and now they are completely destabilised by some of those people coming to their shores to live and work?

Full article

posted by f. sheikh

How Picasso’s Muse Became a Master By Alexandra Schwartz

How did Gilot break free? It helped that she had a fling with a suitor her own age, who didn’t understand why she was going crazy over such a mean old man. And she had her art. Late in her book comes this perverse, delectable scene:

Once as I was working at a painting that had been giving me a great deal of trouble, I heard a small timid knock at the door.

Yes,” I called out and kept on working. I heard Claude’s voice, softly, from the other side of the door.

“Mama, I love you.”

I wanted to go out, but I couldn’t put down my brushes, not just then. “I love you too, my darling,” I said, and kept at my work.

A few minutes passed. Then I heard him again, “Mama, I like your painting.”

“Thank you, darling,” I said. “You’re an angel.”

In another minute, he spoke out again. “Mama, what you do is very nice. It’s got fantasy in it but it’s not fantastic.”

That stayed my hand, but I said nothing. He must have felt me hesitate. He spoke up, louder now. “It’s better than Papa’s,” he said.

I went to the door and let him in.

The art monster versus the mother: this struggle is familiar to many women. What comes through here is the strength of Gilot’s ego. “It’s got fantasy in it but it’s not fantastic”: What child says that? One who has been trained to flatter his mother.

Full article

posted by f.sheikh

Defenders of a Racist President Use Jews as Human Shields Trump’s bigoted attack on four congresswomen of color has nothing to do with fighting anti-Semitism. Michelle Goldberg By Michelle Goldberg

Trump’s bigoted attack on four congresswomen of color has nothing to do with fighting anti-Semitism.

Sebastian Gorka, a onetime adviser to Donald Trump, wore a medal from the Vitezi Rend, a Hungarian group historically aligned with Nazism, to one of Trump’s inaugural balls. Gorka was reportedly a member of the group, whose founder, the Hungarian autocrat Miklos Horthy, once said, “For all my life, I have been an anti-Semite.”

Max Berger is a Jewish social justice activist who has long been deeply involved in Jewish communal life. He’s the co-founder of IfNotNow, a group of American Jews devoted to ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, and recently joined Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign.

In a tweet this month, one of these men tarred the other as an anti-Semite. If you’ve been following the increasingly bizarre turn that American discussion of anti-Semitism has taken, you can probably guess which one.

That’s right, it was Gorka who called Berger an anti-Semite, for having once joined in an internet in-joke about a nonexistent group called “Friends of Hamas.” (Gorka’s tweet appears to have since been deleted.) It wasn’t the only time this month that Gorka accused a Jew of Jew-hating; he’s also charged the anti-Trump conservative writer Anne Applebaum with “standing with the anti-Semites,” demanding that she explain “how you justify this to the community.”

If this were just Gorka, you could dismiss it as trolling. But his tweets were only a particularly brazen example of how right-wing gentiles are wrapping themselves in a smarmy philo-Semitism to attack the left, even when that means attacking either individual Jews or the political interests of most Jewish Americans.

Such Christian appropriation of the fight against anti-Semitism reached its grim nadir this week. As Trump’s racist invective against Ilhan Omar and three other freshman Democratic congresswomen has dominated the news, the president’s defenders have used Jews as human shields, pretending that hatred of the quartet is rooted in abhorrence of anti-Semitism. On Tuesday, an evangelical outfit called Proclaiming Justice to the Nations accused the Anti-Defamation League — the Anti-Defamation League! — of siding with anti-Semites after the ADL called out Trump’s racism. The group even had the audacity to hurl a Hebrew denunciation — “lashon hara,” or “evil tongue” — at the Jewish civil rights organization.

Republicans are only a short step away from such shamelessness when they try to deflect from the president’s racism by accusing his foes of anti-Semitism. “Montanans are sick and tired of listening to anti-American, anti-Semite, radical Democrats trash our country and our ideals,” Senator Steve Daines of Montana tweeted on Monday, proclaiming his solidarity with Trump.

It’s true that Omar has said things that were freighted with anti-Semitism, for which she has expressed regret. But it is grotesque to argue that that excuses racism against her, or that Trump’s taunts have anything to do with protecting Jews. This is a president who regularly deploys anti-Semitic tropes and whose ex-wife said that he slept with a volume of Hitler’s speeches by his bed. When speaking to American Jews, he’s called Israel “your country” and Benjamin Netanyahu “your prime minister,” suggesting that in his mind, we don’t fully belong here any more than Omar does.

Millions of Americans like me and Ilhan Omar are right where we belong-Padma Lakshmi

July 19 at 4:49 PM

Padma Lakshmi is an ACLU Artist Ambassador for immigrants’ and women’s rights, and a host and executive producer of “Top Chef.”

Wednesday night at a rally in Greenville, N.C., a sea of white faces in red hats bellowed “Send her back! Send her back!,” referring to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali refugee who disagreed with the president on policy.

It was a sickening escalation from Sunday, when the president tweetedat Omar and three other congresswomen of color who were born in the United States: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” It was a longer version of the classic racist taunt “Go back to your country!” During the chanting on Wednesday, Trump watched over the crowd, seemingly satisfied. What followed, too, is now classic Trump — saying briefly that “he didn’t like it,” only to say later those very same chanters were “incredible patriots.” It’s Charlottesville 2.0. He has long been dog-whistling to white nationalists, and as he ramps up for 2020, that whistle has become a battle cry.

Those words, those hurtful, xenophobic, entitled words that I’ve heard all throughout my childhood, stabbed me right in the heart. They echoed the unshakable feeling that most brown immigrants feel. Regardless of what we do, regardless of how much we assimilate and contribute, we are never truly American enough because our names sound funny, our skin isn’t white, or our grandmothers live in a different country.

It’s hard for many white Americans to understand how hurtful the language the president used this week is to many of us.

In elementary school, we used to sing, “This land is your land, this land is my land.” But out in the playground and at the arcade, we heard another tune: that no matter how hard we worked, and even if we kept our heads down, many in our nation were never going to accept us as equally American as our white fellow citizens. They snarled and smirked as they reminded us that they could yank away our identity at will.

Full article

f.sheikh