Nadine Naber, "'Look, Mohammed the Terrorist Is Coming!' Cultural Racism, Nation-Based Racism, and the Intersectionality of Oppressions after 9/11"
(page 6 of 6)

Conclusion

In response to the post-September 11th backlash, the category "Arab, Muslim, South Asian" has been incorporated into liberal U.S. multicultural discourses. Consider, for example, diversity initiatives that have operated to single out Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians as the only "targeted communities" in the post-9/11 moment.[21] In such instances, terms such as "targeted communities" have reinforced a multicultural rainbow where specific marginalized groups are associated with specific historical moments while occluding the historical circumstances that produce oppression, marginality, and institutionalized racism, and overshadowing links between groups that have shared similar histories of immigrant exclusion and racism. That many liberal immigrant-rights organizations referred to anti-immigrant policies underlying the PATRIOT Act of 2001 as an "Arab, Muslim, and South Asian" issue and "Border Protection" Bill HR4437 of 2006 as a Latino/a issue—even though both pieces of legislation affected Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, Latinos/as (and other immigrants as well as citizens), and even though the intensified anti-immigrant sentiment sparked by the aftermath of September 11 facilitated support for the HR4437—exemplifies this pattern.

Transgressing liberal multicultural approaches, many racial justice activists and scholars have agreed that survivors of 9/11-related federal government policies and incidents of harassment in the public sphere tended to be Arab, Muslim, and South Asian, but that this is not an isolated case of group marginalization. A new racial justice discourse thus emerged that called attention to anti-Arab/Muslim/South Asian racism, insisted that racial justice movements take the link between U.S.-led war in Muslim majority countries and the marginalization of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians in the United States seriously, and linked the targeting of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians to experiences of other communities with shared histories of oppression, including, but not limited to, Japanese Americans, Filipinos, Latinos/as, and African Americans. Yet prevailing articulations of "race" within U.S. racial and ethnic studies tend to preclude comparative research and teaching on the links between the racialization of Arabs, Muslims, Middle Easterners, and South Asians and other communities that have been historically targeted by racism, colonization, and state violence.

In the late 1960s, San Francisco State University was the site of the longest campus strike in the nation's history, spearheaded by the Black Students Union and the Third World Liberation Front (a coalition of the Black Students Union, the Latin American Students Organization, the Filipino-American Students Organization, and El Renacimiento, a Mexican-American student organization). This movement demanded the expansion of the college's new Black Studies Department (the nation's first), the creation of a School of Ethnic Studies, and increased recruiting and admissions of minority students. On March 21, 1969, this strike officially came to an end with the establishment of the School of Ethnic Studies, which included a focus on Asian Americans, Latinos/as and Native Americans, and an expanded Black Studies Department. This movement, based on the strategic deployment of the terms "Third World people" and "people of color," legitimized the establishment and expansion of ethnic studies programs that place communities with shared histories of oppression by the United States government at the center of study, analysis, activism, and empowerment. Yet this paradigm, which operates according to a 1960s understanding of what constitutes racism has the potential to limit our categories of analysis to those established during the height of student movements for ethnic studies in the 1960s. U.S. women of color feminisms have tended to reify these categories. Contemporary articulations of this paradigm foreclose discussions on how the meaning of "race" has continued to shift and preclude analyses of how "racism" is constantly being remade depending on the historical context. At the same time, many recent conversations within U.S. racial and ethnic studies have explored how research on emergent forms of racialization in relationship to both previous as well as new and current historical processes might contribute to historically situated conceptualizations of race and racism in a post-9/11 environment.

In this essay, I have attempted to bring new questions to bear on the study of race, particularly in terms of analyses of the intersections of race and gender: What are the implications of continually re-evaluating our understanding of racialized-gendered identities in light of new and changing historical moments? What are the possibilities for envisioning U.S. racial and ethnic studies and U.S. women of color feminisms in ways that remain connected to the 1960s student and civil rights struggles through which they were produced, while becoming more attentive to current gendered-racialization processes? How might becoming attentive to the gendered-racialization of Arabs, South Asians, and/or Muslims contribute to explorations of the relationship between race, gender, colonization, and empire or the relationship between histories of "internal" U.S. colonialisms and the structures of imperialism, race, gender, and sexuality that operate against immigrants with whose homelands the United States is at war?

My research reinforces existing theoretical approaches that tend to define U.S. race and ethnic studies, ascontending that "race" is malleable and shifting, racial categories are socially and historically constructed, and the construction of racial categories is a continuous process that takes on new and different forms within different historical moments. It also affirms U.S. women of color feminisms that call attention to differences within racialized communities (such as those of class, gender, sexuality, and religion) and contend that experiences of oppression shaped by both racism and sexism simultaneously cannot be subsumed within either a feminist framework that critiques sexism or an antiracist framework that is only critical of racism.[22] It has also illustrated that research on the gendered racialization of the "Middle Eastern/Muslim" or the "Arab/Muslim/South Asian" "enemy within" can generate important new questions, such as: To what extent does the rhetoric of an endless, fluid "war on terror" that "knows no boundaries" produce new forms of gendered racialization that are similarly arbitrary, open-ended, and transgress borders and particular geographic places?

Endnotes

1. "President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy," October 6, 2005. [Return to text]

2. Nir, Ori. "Bush Riles Muslims With 'Islamic Fascist' Remark." The Jewish Daily Forward, August 18, 2006. [Return to text]

3. See Moallem, Minoo. 2005. Between Warrior Brother and Veiled Sister: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Politics of Patriarchy in Iran. Berkeley: University of California Press. Also see Balibar, Etienne. 1991. "Is There a 'Neo-Racism'?" In Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, edited by Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. London: Verso. [Return to text]

4. Here, I build upon Kent Ono's concept: "potential terrorists." Ono, Kent. 2005. "Asian American Studies after 9/11." In Race, Identity and Representation in Education, 2nd ed., edited by Cameron McCarthy, Warren C. Richlow, Greg Dimitriadis, and Nadine Dolby, 443. New York: Routledge. [Return to text]

5. Burnham, Linda. 2001. "Introduction." In Time to Rise, edited by Linda Burnham, Maylei Blackwell, and Jung Hee Choi. Berkeley: Women of Color Resource Center, 9. [Return to text]

6. Naber, Nadine. 2006. "The Rules of Forced Engagement." Cultural Dynamics (18)3: 235-267. [Return to text]

7. Ashcroft, John. 6 June 2002. Attorney General Prepared Remarks on the National Security Entry-Exit System. Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2007). [Return to text]

8. Cainkar, Louise. 2003. "The Impact of the September 11 Attacks and their Aftermath on Arab and Muslim Communities in the United States." GSC Quarterly 13 (Summer/Fall): 1. [Return to text]

9. Amitava Kumar. 2000. Passport Photos. Berkeley: University of California Press, 74. [Return to text]

10. Ono, Kent A. and John M. Sloop. 2002. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 33. [Return to text]

11. Naber, Nadine. 2006. "The Rules of Forced Engagement." Cultural Dynamics (18)3: 235-267. [Return to text]

12. Ibid. [Return to text]

13. Moallem, Minoo. 2005. Between Warrior Brother and Veiled Sister: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Politics of Patriarchy in Iran. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Return to text]

14. Balibar, Etienne. 1991. "Is There a 'Neo-Racism'?" In Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, edited by Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. London: Verso. [Return to text]

15. Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam. 1994. Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media. New York: Routledge. [Return to text]

16. Lowe, Lisa. 1996. Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Return to text]

17. Desouky, Eman. 2000. Re-que(e)rying the Queer: Imagining Queer Arab Women Through the Politics of Marginality and the Nation. [Return to text]

18. Puar, Jasbir K. and Amit Rai. 2002. "Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the Production of Docile Patriots." Social Text 20 (3): 126. [Return to text]

19. Deb and Mustis, 2004, 7. Deb, Trishala and Rafael Mutis. 2004. "Smoke and Mirrors: Abu Ghraib and the Myth of Liberation." Colorlife! Magazine, Summer 2004. (February 6, 2006) [Return to text]

20. Deb and Mustis, Ibid, 6. [Return to text]

21. Lee, Kien S. 2002. "Building Intergroup Relations after September 11." Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2 (1): 131Ð141. [Return to text]

22. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color." Stanford Law Review 43: 1241-1299. [Return to text]

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6