The Ports Controversy: If it exists, where does xenophobia slip into it?

[Hatalles]

As a Muslim American, I’m particularly sensitive to what I perceive as a growing Islamophobic atmosphere in the country I was born and raised in.

With that said, I am against this port deal with the UAE; however, I am also adamantly opposed to handing over our ports to ANY foreign entity. I believe this is the position most DUers have already taken on the matter.

What is the problem then?

It’s a framing issue. My only concern is that some on the left are feeding this xenophobic atmosphere by inadvertently using Islamophobia as a lever to jolt Bush’s base and potentially swing some of them over into the Democratic camp.

I do not understand why this issue cannot be framed in such a way where we do not single out Arabs or Muslims. Instead, why can’t we clearly demand that NO foreign entity should be in charge of our ports—that US ports should be in US hands? IMHO, by framing the issue this way, Democrats retain the reputation of being strong on security and pro-domestic labor, but more importantly, we do not succumb to the same hate mongering lows of much of the right-wing—we do not perpetuate the ugly xenophobic atmosphere. By framing it this way, it also becomes an issue that lasts—after this UAE story has passed, there will still be other foreign countries in possession of US ports. If we take the holistic point of view, we remain on top of the issue.

I’m not accusing those liberals opposing this deal of being racists (though it is a fact of life that there are always outright racists in every group); hell, I’m against this deal and I am no self-hating xenophobe. But how much better are we than the bigots, if we are gaining the political upper hand on security issues by unwittingly benefiting off of their prejudice to tip the scales in our favor and away from Bush?

Yes, to some degree, it is amusing to see the tables turned on the Bush Administration—them being the ones (along with Al Qaeda and their ilk) who played the largest part in nurturing the Islamophobic atmosphere that exists today; however, I believe we on the left are only sustaining these harmful sentiments if we continue to center the issue solely around possession of US ports by predominantly Arab or Muslim nations.

I think this is an angle on the controversy worth looking into. Self-criticism is something that is difficult for anyone to engage in but I believe we liberals have a stronger stomach for it than most and are more willing to admit our missteps than say, the Bushies. :)

[blm]

1. I see it in terms of fascism and corporate cronyism, as most liberals do.

I think racism very much enters into it from some on the right and center who haven't noticed that fascism is what drives BushInc. and his deals.

[JI7]

2. i don't really see the problem

it would be the same when we object to Christians organizations getting fed funds to "help" people.

[slor]

3. Only jackasses link the "Arab" component to...

the port deal. This should be about our country controlling such a security hazard as ports. I do not like the fact that a British company had ownership. WE should control OUR ports. This is about jobs, outsourcing, and security. The chimp is making SO many enemies, it would not be unimaginable to see someone want to take out a port for a myriad of reasons, therefore, we should control our own. Hell, even then it is not a guarantee, think tim mcveigh, but it could help a little bit.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I've worked on behalf of a lot of Islamic and Palestinian groups.

I still the deal is asinine. Simply put, UAE was one of the last countries to continue backing the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban DID have something to do with 9/11.

Granted, I don't think the Dubai company is going to let anything happen, personally, but it's still just an absolutely idiotic thing to let happen. Our security shouldn't be outsourced at all, but least of all to someone that supported out enemy. That's not Islamophobic in the least.

Trust me - there are more than enough valid cases of anti-Islamic/Arab behavior in the United States. We don't need to artificially add to it.

[JuniperLea]

5. I understand your position and your sensitivity

But my perspective is completely different. My disdain for the UAE has nothing to do with people of Arabian descent or of the Muslim faith, and everything to do with people who harbored, aided and abetted the criminals who flew planes into the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11/01, and nothing else. That is my only objection to the UAE running the ports. (As an aside; funny how at first it was six ports and now it is 21... just more lies on top of more lies and so on and so on.) This is really the only argument I've seen here on DU. I have never ever seen Arab or Muslim hate here. There have been a few who came close and they were quickly smacked down by the rest of us. I just don't see it. I wish I could see through your eyes for a minute so I could make sense of this.

Foreign countries have been in charge of many ports in the US for many, many years. Certainly over 25 years that I know of personally. Taking control back would be like trying to take guns away from US citizens. Not going to happen. You cannot turn back time and you cannot undo much of what has already begun happening.

[MADem]

6. My problem has always been doing business with despots

Freedom is swell for the Iraqis, cuz they are FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLES, ya see...so they don't mind that their country is being bombed into oblivion, prices are through the roof, and they have less services and security, and an ever-growing list of casualties, than they did before we went in and 'helped' them.

Of course, in order to help them, we jump in bed with dictators who OPPRESS their people, but that's hunky dory...I guess WE are the only ones to decide who deserves to be a FREEDOM LOVER or not. Saddam oppressing his people, why, that's BAAAAAAAAD....the Supreme Council of the UAE denying basic liberties to their people...well, that's just FINE. Pervez Musharaff ruling his country with an iron fist...no problemo!!!

It's total horseshit. Either you support democracy or you don't, Georgie. It's like asking prostitutes to raise money for the anti-vice fund! It is typical of the hypocrisy of this administration, and they are using the xenophobic bugaboo to DISTRACT from that very hypocritical stance.

The fact that people are even discussing it suggests that some are buying it.

Of course, we all know why we went to Iraq--it wasn't for FREEDOM, unless it was freedom-from-paying-too-much-at-the-pump that we are talking about. The whole damn exercise was about lifting that oil...and if they had admitted that from the get-go, this deal would make complete and total sense. Screw those people, we want yer GAS, dammit! And we will do business with any sumbitch over in that general vicinity that will help us consolidate our power and project our force over the region. It may not be morally right, but at least it would be honest.

But to state, with no irony or shame, that freedom is good for Iraq, but SHHHHHHHHHHH! Don't bring it up when you are talking to our new business partners....well, that doesn't pass any smell test.