In my Aug. 11, 2005 column for WND, “The case for imperialism,” this columnist argued from a nationalistic (some said xenophobic) perspective for the cultural superiority of Western Civilization compared to that which the politically correct have, to our peril, vigorously encouraged Americans to tolerate and, in many cases, embrace. The column also suggested that the U.S. ought to be more forthright and unapologetic relative to acting in its own self-interest.
For many years now, progressives among us have used revisionist history, moral relativism and guilt to make the case that America occupies no moral high ground despite our sense of global responsibility, indeed, that our motives and meddling methods are inherently evil. Quod erat demonstrandum, other cultures, regardless of how questionable some of their practices might be to us at first blush, are every bit as viable as our own, and indeed, we are being racist if we “judge” them.
While the far left in America has historically made it a practice of engaging in and supporting pro-feminist zealotry, a major contradiction presents itself in its deference to retrograde cultures of late – specifically those that brutally oppress women.
Pakistan, or officially, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has the second-largest Muslim population in the world. Indeed, Pakistan became a nation in 1956 expressly to provide a homeland for those Muslims who had resided in India during the British raj, yet did not wish to be ruled by Hindus. We’ve yet to see what impact the recent resignation of Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf (who played the Bush administration like a fiddle) will have upon America’s foreign policy, but it is certain that we – or more accurately, our government – will make every effort to maintain amicable relations with whomever ascends to power.
Over the last few years, the phenomenon of acid attacks upon women by men in Pakistan has gained increasing consideration in the Western press. These attacks involve an individual dashing highly concentrated, corrosive acid into the face of a woman – usually, a young woman – with whom the man is vexed for some reason. Often, it is a spurned suitor, although occasionally it is carried out by a woman’s own family member over a point of “honor,” such as disobeying her husband. These assaults invariably render the women aesthetic monstrosities.
While people in the West have grown more aware of this hideous practice, it appears as though no one has put two and two together vis-à-vis the Islamic connection (that being, such a thing having its genesis in the Muslim paradigm of society) and its reflection on the legitimacy of Islamic customs in general.
Say you had a next-door neighbor who was a complete pig. This holds whether you live in a trailer park or a multimillion-dollar home. He beats his wife. He curses his children in the driveway. He can’t handle money, but manages to maintain his level of subsistence by scraping friends, family members and business associates. He is a wholly repugnant, uncouth individual with whom you are hard-pressed to find any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Would you want to party with this guy? Would you model your lifestyle after his? Would you lend him a few grand? Of course not. Yet, much to your horror, you have family members who are willing to do so and who insist there’s nothing at all the matter with Mr. Pig. In fact, they say, you’d do well to be more like him.
The point: Here is a society – some might say, yet another society – that Americans have been persuaded to perceive as friendly, but which:
- is Muslim, something that should raise suspicion but does not, due to the far-left propaganda machine, and
- within which such barbaric practices as acid attacks and honor killings are commonplace, but are not examined with intellectual honesty by those in the West.
Certainly, there are examples other than Pakistan, and this is not intended to be a blanket indictment of Pakistanis. However, while we have not been as careless as the United Kingdom with respect to immigrants from Islamist nations, our country has allowed our “good friends” in Saudi Arabia to insinuate networks of radical mosques within the U.S. Our government has compromised our economy and national security via its dealings with both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the case of the Saudis, it’s our need for oil and the royal family’s fear; with Pakistan it’s largely access to Afghanistan – for all the good that’s done us.
Prudence would dictate (at the least) even more scrutiny of Islamic institutions in the U.S. than those that are occasionally highlighted in the press. Unfortunately, politicians are so cowed by civil liberties activists that it will likely take another terrorist attack traced to a radical mosque or school before decisive action is taken.