Thursday, November 12, 2009

Marquette Sociology Professor: Don’t Blame Hasan’s Muslim Views for Fort Hood Shooting

The Muslim faith of Fort Hood assassin Nidal Hasan so obviously played a part in the murders he committed that even the mainstream media have covered the evidence in detail.

Facts have overcome political correctness.

But in academia, especially sociology departments, facts have little traction against ingrained assumptions about who is the “victim” and who is the “oppressor.”

Thus we have Louise A. Cainkar, who is a professor in Marquette’s Sociology Department, insisting that “Questions abound as to what drove him to commit these acts, but a rush to connect his actions with Islamic extremism is irresponsible.”

Even worse, she summarizes by saying:
The media’s coverage of these killings thus far appears to be another effort to reduce complexity to stereotype, to demonize Islam, and to shift the focus of public thought away from a deep questioning about war, American military activity, and the damage these are doing to people (including “our own” people), and to refocus it on the ubiquitous, evil “them.”
Right. Don’t ask questions about jihadist Islam, just question “the damage we are doing to people.” It’s really America that is at fault.

It’s always America that is at fault.

Unfortunately, a dangerous number of Muslims have decided to define themselves as “them.” It’s nowhere near a majority of Muslims, and fewer in the U.S. than in Europe, but Islamic radicalism is an enemy of America. We didn’t make them the enemy. They chose to be the enemy.

Sociology, as a discipline, is stiflingly politically correct. Perhaps that’s why the number of students enrolled in sociology courses has declined. Even academics, comfortably ensconced in tenured positions and free to spew nonsense with complete impunity, eventually face a market test.

It’s high time.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Cainkar makes a perfectly legitimate point, and you actually seem to miss the whole point of her article. Her point is that the media coverage has been irresponsible in its jump to conclusions and its focus on one sort of explanation to the complete exclusion of other explanatory factors. She is NOT in the article saying we should not ask questions about whether Hasan is a jihadist. (Much less is she saying that is America is to blame.) She is saying that the media should not latch onto that explanation as if there are no other possible causes or motivations. I don't know why you would want to argue that the media should be ignoring other things that might have played a role in his snapping the way he did.

For you, it seems, the fact that Hasan's Muslim faith "so obviously played a part in the murders" logically implies that Islamic extremism and Jihadism drove him to his actions. Cainkar's point is that if we want to understand the causes of his action, there is more to be taken into account than simply his faith or his political sympathies. Of course, it could turn out that he was nothing more than a jihadist-terrorist. But assuming that this must be the case because he is a Muslim is, I think, irresponsible.

It seems to me it is not political correctness that you loathe about academia but rather the fact that people in academia recognize that the world is more complicated and subtle place than it gets portrayed by Glenn Beck.

12:51 PM  
Blogger James Pawlak said...

Can you find a Muslim who will openly and very publicly condemn the teachings of Mohammed which allow or encourage, and sometimes command, the use of murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, perpetual war with "unbelievers", etc.?

Can you find such a person who will admit that Mohammed was a murderer, liar and treaty-breaker, bandit and the sexual abuser of a nine-year young girl-child?

7:55 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

media coverage has been irresponsible in its jump to conclusions

If some guy repeatedly expressed hatred of black people, belonged to the Klan, and then went into and shot up a black church, I think you would be happy to put 2 and 2 together.

11:07 PM  
Blogger God Of Bacon said...

Islam had nothing to do with it.

If you'll recall from the Stanley Kubrick movie, "Dr. Strangelove", General Jack D. Ripper was no longer able to get an erection. He blamed that on flouridation, then embraced the idea that flouridation was a communist plot and tried to start World War III so he would no longer feel impotent.

Major Hasan was almost 40 and like George Sodini, felt he was running out of time.

7:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Louise Cainkar, for whatever reason, decided to leave out many examples of how his religion might have had an affect on his decision to murder so many innocent people.

The only argument she provides is about his alleged internet postings. What she fails to mention is his relationship with a radical imam, his psychological presentation which mentioned his acceptance of jihadist suicide bombers, and the fact that he screamed "Allahu Akbar" while in the act.

Not to mention the fact that he considered his religion more important to him than being an American citizen. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it might explain why he chose to go on a suicidal rampage instead of the other options he had to bail out of deployment.

3:10 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home