I wondered what Bill Clinton said at the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee’s annual convention last weekend. Kabobfest has a good report:
Most conflict in the world, [Clinton said], is driven by identity, even
though divisions are blind to the fact that we all share 99.5% genetic
commonalities. Therefore, we can be proud if our identities and
celebrate our diversity, but not let pride in identity turn to hate:
“You teach your children their ethnic heritage; their religious
heritage; their cultural heritage with no negative reference to anyone
else because it’s the only shot we’ve got to make the most of our
interdependent world….
Sounds reasonable and bland enough, right? If taken out of context, the insult is missed.
First, the focus on identity trivializes the material bases of our
positions and politics. We are not angry at U.S. foreign policy and
Israel because of identity differences, but because of invasions,
occupations and displacements. While he acknowledges the inequality of
the world system, he does not consider that our resentment may come
from being on the receiving end of oppression. Talking about identity
while ignoring this crucial context is in line with analysis that
considers Arab resistance to American and Israeli agenda as
‘civilizational’ or ‘cultural,’ or based on ancient hatreds.
Second, I felt he belittled our concerns with the fate of the
Palestinians when he mildly encouraged the Arab-American community’s
efforts on it after talking about the big issues such as the prospects
of environmental apocalypse. So silly was his analysis, he compared the
outcome to a mad max road warrior movie – then he excoriated the crowd
for laughing? “It’s not funny.” I think his juxtaposition was intended
to suggest we are over-concerned with this problem. He was trying to
shift our agenda to care about nebulous problems, while discrediting
our issues — all implicitly, meaning without direct intents.
