Alarming News

May 27, 2005

Islamofascism v. Segregationist South

Cathy Seipp:

Liberals then did not tsk-tsk about the observation that the segregated south was a toxic, racist culture that had to change — nor did they explain to blacks impatient about “colored” water fountains etc. that really, this is a different culture after all, and we need to be delicate and understanding.

Certainly I realize that there are differences between the pre-Civil War south and Islamists today. The animosity of segregationists was focused on blacks; Islamists especially hate Jews, but also aren’t generally fond of Americans, Christians, women, homosexuals, Buddhist statues or the entire western way of life. And even at its worst, the segregated south wasn’t expansionist, at least not in the 20th-Century. When George Wallace stood in that schoolhouse door, he didn’t mean that schools across the entire planet should conform to his notions of separate but equal — or watch out for the suicide bombers.

Posted by Karol at 01:49 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Re: the George Wallace analogy
Once again, the right lumps Democrats into the same category as terrorists.

Posted by: Marco at May 27, 2005 at 2:18 pm

Ummm, no. I believe the point was that the Left has become parochial and narcissistic, prefering to re-fight battles already won than face the current threats to the ideals they supposedly hold most dear.
Get a grip, Marco.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 27, 2005 at 2:58 pm

There is little difference between the way the Party of Wallace treated blacks in the South and the way Muslims treat women. The left is comforatble with both.

Posted by: ds at May 27, 2005 at 3:14 pm

Once again I must protest (surprising, eh?).
Islamofascist doesn’t equal Islamist which doesn’t equal Terrorist.
The term “Islamofascist” sounds good to me, perhaps it’s a good one to adopt.
“Islamist”, however, isn’t so fair, that would imply that Islam encourages this sort of behavior. A true Islamist would be calling for jihad AGAINST these poisonous influences to Islam.
And Terrorism is not the provice of Muslims, but of morons of all stripes.
So please feel free to refer to the underbelly of the Islamic world as “Islamofascists” or “Islamofascist Wahabbis” or “Islamofascist Usulis” depending on the bent of the particular Islamofascists (the former the school of Al Queda and the like, the latter the school of Khomeini and his ilk.
And, personally, I treat women pretty good.

Posted by: Kearns at May 27, 2005 at 3:55 pm

I’m opposed to the use of the word Islamofascist from a purely phonetical standpoint.

Posted by: Shawn at May 27, 2005 at 4:12 pm

You’re not a phoeneticofascist, are you Shawn?

Posted by: Kearns at May 27, 2005 at 4:17 pm

Yeah. Or grammar Nazi. Either works.

Posted by: Shawn at May 27, 2005 at 4:33 pm

“Islamofascism” is a terrible word because it mixes Arabic and Latin in a way that does violence to both tongues. It is what Fowler would call a barbarism. Unfortunately, there’s no stopping it now. (Same goes for “television.” Oh well.)

Posted by: Jacob Marley at May 28, 2005 at 4:19 pm

Combined words are fun! And some of them bizarrely even make it into the dictionary (see “Bootilicious”… aiee!). English doesn’t adapt other languages; it follows them down dark alleys, beats them down, and rifles pockets for loose grammar. Can’t remember where I stole that… let’s call it, Anonymous.

Posted by: Loop at May 30, 2005 at 7:24 am
Post a comment