The newest disfavored minority

(For the background of the title image, go here; definitely worth a read. Hint: it's not what it seems)

I'll start out with a quote:

Although it irritates me that Muslims must constantly prove their loyalty to America in a way that no other Americans are required to do, such is the status of being the shit-list minority.

From the time before independence, America has wrestled with the question of what to do with its Jews Catholics Blacks Indians Women Germans Japanese Gays Arabs and Muslims. The first settlement of Jews in the then-colony of New Amsterdam was allowed over the objections of founding governor Stuyvesant in 1654; because Catholics weren't welcome in New England, the colonies of Maryland and Delaware were founded for them; Dred Scott declared that Blacks could not be citizens even if they were free; Indians did not receive citizenship until 1924; the agitation for universal suffrage started in 1848 and took until 1920; Woodrow Wilson's administration outlawed as treasonous the public speaking of German, whereupon his Attorney General resigned and defended those accused under this law; the detainment of Japanese-American citizens was approved by the Supreme Court in Korematsu; and in 1986, in Bowers, the Supreme Court rejected as 'facetious' the claim that consensual gay sex could be outside the purview of the criminal law. Needless to say, we have more recently seen a Presidential campaign that was largely decided on the question of whether gays should be granted equality under the 14th Amendment.

In short, it sucks to be a disfavored minority in America; always has, probably always will, because there's always a good, solid reason to keep [insert disfavored minority of choice here] from [insert given form of participation in the life of the nation here]. The necessity of stopping [insert minority here] from [insert apocalyptic scenario leading directly to the fall of the Republic here] is clear even to [insert formerly disfavored minority here]. The process is always the same, even if the arguments vary.

Now, of course, we as a nation find ourselves in what our government calls a 'war on terror', and I call a hysterical over-reaction to a bunch of extremist goatherds. We've gained somewhat in subtlety since Korematsu, and I'll grudgingly admit that the junta has made gestures to protect Arabs and Muslims from public opprobrium directed at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. That said, there are plenty of ways to discriminate ensure our security that don't require an Act of Congress. You could, for example, round up a few thousand Arabs without benefit of warrants, monitor every mosque within fifty miles of the Capitol for radiation, and claim that you have the right to hold U.S. citizens without due process on your say-so.

More importantly, the junta has raised fear-mongering to an art form, with the willing connivance of the corporate media. It has also, banking on our justified outrage over the 9/11 attacks, channeled the dread of future 9/11s into a battery of policies - a war of aggression abroad, a war on civil liberties and the separation of powers at home - that it would not have gotten passed without the fear-mongering it fostered with such glee.

Then, of course, after the ceaseless terror alerts of 2004 and the election - "Vote for Kerry, and Osama will blow you up" - we had Katrina, the glaring disparity between what the BushBots said about Iraq and what was actually happening, Abramoff, Scooter Libby, and a few other scandals. The common thread was that you couldn't trust the junta's claims.

Enter the idea that port operations in New York and elsewhere should be sold to an Arab company; add some cartoon riots, insurgents, a good dose of inflammatory rhetoric and suicide bombers and throw on a match or two. Voila: a conflagration.

Today, the junta finds itself having to defend nuances and complexities of port security in the hands of said company against the outraged baying of vox populi. What we're seeing here is a perfect storm, in which several groups are united by differing interests and playing an eminently unsubtle political game by the very same rules set up over the last few years by Karl Rove, Esquire.

Congressional repugs are jumping on the bandwagon because they need to put some daylight between their boy-king and themselves (they read polls, too); Congressional Democrats are all over this because it takes away Bush's sole remaining political asset, the perception that he'll stop Osama from blowing up your local Wal-Mart keep the country safe; the New York delegation is genuinely concerned across party lines, which is a safe conclusion when Charles Schumer and Peter King, who loathe each other, co-sponsor legislation.

So where does this fracas leave American Arabs and Muslims? Outraged and offended, no doubt; being on the receiving end of a full blast of hysteria, even if the object is abroad, can't be that great of an experience. This contretemps is certainly laying bare a number of fault lines in the body politic, starting with apprehension over something that Arabs have nothing to do with, namely port security. There's also the issue of trust; I have a problem with this deal, as noted below, because I trust neither the Bush junta nor the Dubai government.

Notably, the UAE is one of the best allies America has in the Arab world, along with Jordan, Qatar, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. Dubai itself is probably the most free-wheeling hub of commerce in that part of the world, notable for its bizarre construction projects, such as a series of man-made islands, one of which has been acquired by Michael Jackson. If there is an Arab regime that should find favor with this country, it's that of Dubai, certainly by comparison with another trusted ally, Saudi Arabia. Capitalist Tool Forbes goes into extensis here and here.

That said, princes of royal houses of the UAE, including the current Minister of Defense, went hunting with bin Laden as recently as 1999; the UAE government tipped off Al Qaeda about U.S. knowledge of a place bin Laden was, which leads the 9/11 commission to oppose this deal; Dubai was a hub in the sale of Pakistani nuclear secrets to Iran and Libya; Al Qaeda is very active there, as a recent arrest of a terrorist trainer shows; the UAE government directly supported and recognized the Taliban; Osama bin Laden received medical treatment in Dubai; and even after 9/11, Dubai remains Al Qaeda's financial hub.

I'd suggest that all Americans examine their conscience on this matter; non-Arabs, to see if they're (perhaps) acting from quasi-racist hysteria; Arabs, to see if they're defending the deal out of a (legitimate) desire to avoid further marginalization. Personally, what I'm missing is a clear-eyed, reliable assessment of the risks involved. What is becoming clear is that the deal did not receive the proper vetting - here, here, here, here and here - and that, given the history of the junta, we should be concerned about whether they've done the due diligence required despite their claims to have done so.

We should be capable of having a discussion about national security without falling into racist diatribes. Whether or not we can do so, given the history of the last five years, is very much an open question; especially when the racist diatribes serve so many political purposes. On the other hand, I don't consider legitimate questions about whether it's a good idea to hand control of the port of New York to a government that until recently was a top sponsor of extremist Islamists racist.