No subject

<BR>
Indiscriminate hostility makes Muslims enemies of the state <BR>
<BR>
Dear Oe-san:<BR>
<BR>
I must say first of all how honored I am by this exchange of letters with y=
ou. As one of the world's great writers, you are also a sensitive witness to=
 the travails of our time, particular those that concern Japan, an extraordi=
nary country that seems to embody more intractably than most, the contradict=
ions, the ups and downs of modernity and tradition, war and peace, dependenc=
e and audacity, empire and its loss.<BR>
<BR>
No one has written more profoundly about these matters in the context of wh=
at I would call Japan's worldliness, that is, its place in the historical an=
d secular world, than you, and your first letter to me is a perfect instance=
 of what I mean about your work. If in the end you raise questions of an alm=
ost epochal seriousness-several of which I cannot answer here-then that too =
has been your style, to pose stark alternatives against each other without p=
rettification, for example, between empire and victimhood, or between memory=
 and future directions. We must face them, you say courageously. For that I =
am deeply grateful, as I am also for the consideration that you give to my o=
wn work.<BR>
<BR>
I have now lived in the United States for 51 years, having come here from t=
he Arab world (Egypt and pre-1948 Palestine) when I was a schoolboy aged 15.=
 It was a momentous move for me, full of unhappy dislocation, a sense of los=
s, and great difficulty getting used to a place that was totally different f=
rom the warm (in both senses of the word) environment of Arab society.<BR>
<BR>
After slowly getting used to America, getting all my education here, and th=
en finding a job teaching at Columbia University (I began in 1963 and I am s=
till a member of the faculty), I find myself feeling like a lost stranger al=
l over again. The other day a friend asked me, ``What does it feel like to b=
e the enemy?'' which is something that every Arab or Muslim American that I =
know feels: We are the officially designated enemies of a nation whose presi=
dent committed himself publicly to a war against evil, on an apocalyptic lev=
el and scale unknown to previous history.<BR>
<BR>
The war against Afghanistan was fought against the Taliban and al-Qaida, bo=
th of whom are unlamented in defeat; but it is still a noteworthy fact that =
two of the officially designated members of the ``axis of evil'' are Muslim =
states, one of them Arab, and that the only countries since the Vietnam War =
that the U.S. has waged all-out war against are Muslim countries, Iraq, Afgh=
anistan, Somalia, whose complete destruction was desired, if not totally ach=
ieved.<BR>
<BR>
The media here has ceaselessly pursued ``terrorism'' and ``radical or milit=
ant Islam'' with such insistence and such indiscriminate hostility as to hav=
e made us all into enemies of the state, a state acting on behalf of righteo=
usness and good with, it would seem, a mandate from God. Arab and Muslim Ame=
ricans are routinely challenged by police, airline attendants, security offi=
cials because of the way they look, and even because of the language they sp=
eak or read. A plane-traveling friend of mine was recently asked to put away=
 his Arabic newspaper because, the attendant said, it was ``disturbing'' oth=
er passengers. Understandably enough, Americans fear for their security afte=
r the atrocities of Sept. 11, but ``evil'' can't be localized so easily and =
found to be emanating only from the non-Atlantic world. Who can forget Herma=
n Melville's character Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, the greatest American nove=
l, in relentless, crazy pursuit of the white whale that has become his monom=
aniacal obsession as the personification of evil?<BR>
<BR>
For the first time in my life I find it next to impossible to read The New =
York Times or watch the network television news: both seem driven in their r=
eporting and commentary by a patriotic attitude that essentially supports th=
e war, increased defense spending (raised to an unprecedented level), and th=
e projection of U.S. power, with the ability to fight a war everywhere in th=
e world.<BR>
<BR>
I myself have always opposed religious politics and have strongly condemned=
 wanton and suicidal violence, and I have done so not only in English but in=
 the Arab world in Arabic. And yet I feel that the hostility toward and misu=
nderstanding of ``Islam'' (which is a useless description for 1.3 billion pe=
ople who come from innumerable traditions, use hundreds of different languag=
es, and possess every variety of diversified culture) have enveloped whole p=
ortions of the globe, especially in Europe and the U.S., so that everything =
has been boiled down reductively to a few caricatures of a whole culture and=
 religion in order to sustain an attitude of the most profound bellicosity a=
nd to drag a huge body of Americans, unthinkingly and uncritically, into sup=
porting that attitude.<BR>
<BR>
Some of the arguments used to keep Americans at war are, for instance, that=
 Islam is enraged; or, Islam has not had a Reformation and needs one now; or=
, something has gone wrong with the Islamic world; or, finally, that Islam i=
s a militant and violent religion.<BR>
<BR>
The result has been to make the complex, dynamic interaction of peoples, cu=
ltures and traditions a simple oppositional matter, rather in the (basically=
) mindless and simplified way advocated by Samuel Huntington in his ``The Cl=
ash of Civilizations'' on the one hand, and, on the other, to blind American=
s to what their nation or culture is in fact doing.<BR>
<BR>
This is strikingly reminiscent of the rhetorical war between the U.S. and J=
apan during World War II, described by John Dower. But, that was soon over a=
nd replaced for a time with Japan-bashing that occurred while Japan's power =
grew so remarkably in the 1970s and after. Hostility between Islam and the W=
est is a much older one. It goes in both directions, of course, but with the=
 enormous asymmetry of power favoring the U.S., it is a far more disturbing =
and destructive exchange.<BR>
<BR>
What I would underline in such a situation is the ever-increasing importanc=
e of understanding and criticism, both of which are the essence of citizensh=
ip and democracy.<BR>
<BR>
My impression is that what has overtaken America is a wave of triumphal pat=
riotism, much of it of course stemming from the shock of the atrocities of S=
ept. 11. Yes, it is completely understandable for the United States to have =
responded to the attacks, but that response has been overlain with a kind of=
 metaphysical language justifying unilateralism abroad while preventing disc=
ussion and criticism at home.<BR>
<BR>
Thus President Bush speaks of a crusade in one breath, of an axis of evil i=
n another, whereas what we are talking about (in the terms of history and re=
ality that you so eloquently invoke in your letter to me) is American power =
on such an unprecedented scale as to grind down the rest of the world and sa=
y, as Bush does continually, you're either with us or you're for terrorism.<=
BR>
<BR>
No one has defined terrorism adequately even though the whole world seems t=
o be mobilized to fight against it, Japan included, as you very accurately s=
ay. The U.N. spent several years in the mid-1970s debating the meaning of th=
e term, and was unsuccessful in finding a common, all-encompassing definitio=
n.<BR>
<BR>
The problem is that, used without qualification as a concept merely to iden=
tify what one doesn't like, or something evil that has been done, or an offi=
cial enemy, the word ``terrorism'' can also obscure what may be an act of re=
sistance, or of desperation caused by a preponderance of power that is both =
heedless and destructive. I agree that what bin Laden did, and what his foll=
owers advocate, are terroristic because they call for the indiscriminate kil=
ling of innocent people and a false divide of the world simplistically into =
his enemies and his allies. What madness this is, and what a misrepresentati=
on not only of Islam but of the complexity of human history.<BR>
<BR>
But I think it is especially wrong to use the word ``terrorism'' uniformly =
(as General Sharon does) whenever Palestinians strike back at Israel. If one=
 were to say, as Sharon and George Bush repeatedly do, that Palestinian suic=
ide-bombings are terrorism-I myself find them unacceptable-and then demand t=
hat Yasser Arafat should stop Palestinian violence altogether, the context i=
s entirely missed, which is that Israel has been in an illegal military occu=
pation of Palestinian territory for 35 years, the longest one in modern hist=
ory (along with the Japanese occupation of Korea between 1910 and 1945).<BR>
<BR>
Israel is a nuclear power, with F-16s and attack helicopters furnished by t=
he United States; it has used those to collectively punish and besiege an en=
tirely civilian, unarmed, stateless and dispossessed Palestinian population,=
 all the while confiscating Palestinian land, building illegal settlements, =
destroying houses, assassinating leaders, and now, imprisoning Yasser Arafat=
 in his compound. To every Arab and Muslim, what Israel has been doing is st=
ate terrorism, and what Palestinians do most of the time is to resist that v=
iolence, sometimes using desperate terrorist means.<BR>
<BR>
The problem is that for independent intellectuals like you and me, the ques=
tions we raise, the moral issues we discern, the language and imagery that w=
e use are central to the whole enterprise of democratic citizenship. You hav=
e shown in your beautiful reflections on the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hi=
roshima, or rather in your careful work recording the testimonials of people=
 who lived through that indescribable apocalypse, that human knowledge is es=
sentially tragic and always somehow inadequate to the terrible immediacy of =
human experience. That doesn't stop one, however, from thinking and trying e=
verlastingly to elaborate the situation that presents itself so urgently for=
 consideration, analysis, judgment.<BR>
<BR>
And this is one reason, whether we live in Japan or the United States, the =
engulfing power of enormous military enterprises and huge corporate endeavor=
s prompts us to deal with them carefully and stubbornly, analyzing and demys=
tifying them, without falling into the kind of assent to authority that so m=
any of our compatriots have succumbed to. Never unquestioning solidarity wit=
hout criticism, is my motto. And I think yours, too.<BR>
<BR>
Doubtless we are now in a new phase of history, of which the regulation of =
political discourse by central authority is an intimidating reality for indi=
viduals everywhere. Isn't it also our role, I would ask you cherished Oe-san=
, not only to outline the reality but also to present alternatives to it?<BR=
>
<BR>
So many of our generation have turned away from their earlier critical posi=
tions and have embraced ``pragmatism'' and endorsements of the status quo. B=
ut surely there are other ``realities'' to which we can appeal, here and in =
Japan. Maybe we can go into this in our next letter.<BR>
<BR>
I embrace and salute you,<BR>
<BR>
With my fondest wishes,<BR>
<BR>
(C) Edward W. Said<BR>
<BR>
These stories originally appeared in Japanese, the Asahi Shimbun on Feb. 13=
, 14 and 15, and in asahi.com culture site, http://www.asahi.com/culture/bun=
ka/index.html<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--MS_Mac_OE_3109180411_1675771_MIME_Part--