The racism against Arabs and Muslims in the American press has always, especially since the 1948 start of the Arab-Israeli conflict, been casual and ubiquitous.
Prejudice against Arabs and Muslims is stated and printed against Arabs and Muslims in a manner in which 1) it would never be stated against any other group of people 2) there would be outrage it anyone dared.
But when it comes to Arabs and Muslim racism is routine in the American press, and September 11th has worsened the public racism. But let there be no doubt that such casual racism has been a long-standing fact and it predates September 11th and the establishment of the state of Israel (whereby Israel’s supporters in the press began to defame Arabs with the aim of dehumanizing them and making Americans fear them so that Americans do not sympathize with Arabs and reserve all support for Israel).
Back in 1921, The New York Times asked silent Italian-American film actor Rudolph Valentino how his love interest in the film “The Sheik” could fall in love with a “savage” (Arab). Fortunately, Valentino has more sense than the Times and stated, “People are not savages because they have dark skins. The Arabian civilization is one of the oldest in the world…the Arabs are dignified and keen brained.” And in his portray he consciously moved away from the crude Hollywood stereotypes of Arabs.
So this is a long-standing feature. But the Arab-Israeli wars, U.S. support for Zionism, and September 11th have all made matters worse. Especially in the case of the latter where know bigots who were restrained feel free to publicly air their hostility to Arabs and Muslims. Take the New York Post. To be fair to the Post, this tabloid has a long-standing record of fanatical Zionism and racism toward Arabs which it is very proud of. So nothing new here. I mean, this paper spews prejudice on a daily basis. But sometimes it still is shocking. Consider this review of the new film “Sex and the City 2” which is set in the Middle East. I knew that anti-Arab bigots would attack this film because it dare shows the Middle East in a favorable light. Thus I was not surprised when the bigoted, fascist site ‘JihadWatch’ linked to the Post’s review. And what did the Post write?:
The girls aren’t interested in anything except shopping, drinking and strutting through the desert in slo-mo, but what’s most appalling is that they vamp to “I Am Woman” in this land of sand Nazis.
Why not just call Arab “sand Niggers” and get it over with? This is how casual racism is in America that a reviewer for a prominent paper can call Arabs, all Arabs, Nazis for no other reason than being Arab and nobody neither notices nor cares, and if they notice they probably think its “edgy”. And the writer is a former military man who served in the first Gulf War. The Post calls Arabs “sand Nazis” without hesitation and yet if you criticize Israel in the most timid manner this is one of the fanatical voices of Zionism which will at least insinuate that you’re an anti-Semite.
It is not that racism just appears it is that nobody even cares to think that Arabs reading that would be deeply offended. Decades ago, when San Francisco’s television censor Paul Mular was asked by racist and negative portrayals of Arabs in American films and television shows he replied that it never even occurred to him that anyone would even find such images objectionable. And this is in America’s most liberal city.
‘Nuff said.
