« Tearing Down the Ankara Wall (In Slow-Motion) | Main | Are Minarets 'Our Bayonets?' »
December 2, 2009
Aryan Supremacy Reigns Supreme in Switzerland
[Originally published in Hurriyet Daily News]
You must have heard that the open-minded people of Switzerland took to the polls last weekend to ban minarets - in a country where there are only four of them. These days, the global news is full of stories and commentaries about this apparently democratic, yet shockingly illiberal decision. But if you really want to understand the undercurrents that led the majority of the Swiss society to this unbelievable point, I would suggest watching a 1940 film, "Der Ewige Jude."
This was an anti-Semitic "documentary" produced by Fritz Hippler, who, under Joseph Goebbels, ran the film department in the Propaganda Ministry of the Third Reich. The 62-minute film, whose title means "The Eternal Jew," was made to convince its German audience that Jews were dangerous creatures who, simply by their existence, threatened the civilized society of the Aryan peoples.
Aryan aesthetics
Aesthetics was at the basis of the "Der Ewige Jude" argument. The movie presented extended scenes about life in Polish ghettos, focusing on the long hair, beards, skull caps and caftans of Orthodox Jews. Contrasting these Eastern-looking people with the blond, blue-eyed and heavily muscled German athletes, the film argued that there is a fundamental gap of values between the two.
"The Nordic concept of beauty," it said, "is completely incomprehensible to the Jew." The latter, according to the script, were "dirty" people who enjoyed living in "bug-infested homes."
To further emphasize the argument of incivility, the film also focused on the Jewish religious practice of kosher slaughtering, in which animals are bled to death. "Their so-called religion prevents the Jews from eating meat butchered in the ordinary way," the narrator noted, remarking on how dreadfully different this was from the "well-known German love of animals."
"Der Ewige Jude" was not speaking without "evidence." It "proved" all its arguments with carefully selected facts. When it argued, for example, that Jews are compelled by their "so-called religion" to hate and conspire against non-Jews, the film quoted a few passages from the Jewish scriptures that indeed said harsh things about the gentiles.
Finally, the film focused on current events of the era. It told how Jews were multiplying rapidly among the Aryan peoples, polluting their clean living spaces. "They spread from Eastern Europe like an irresistible tide," it warned, "flooding the towns and nations of Europe."
That was the year 1940. And we all know what tragically happened in the next five years.
Now, if you want to understand why all this Nazi madness is relevant to today, you just need to replace the word "Jew" in the paragraphs above with the word "Muslim." You will get a narrative very similar to that told by the nascent anti-Islamic movement in Europe, including the Swiss People's Party, the main champion of the recent minaret ban.
Of course, this parallelism has its limits. First, I should note that I do not, by any means, foresee a "Muslim Holocaust" coming. Probably no European nation will ever go that insane again, at least in the foreseeable future. Moreover, there are differences between the sources of the anti-Judaism of the early 20th century and the anti-Islamism of today.
The Jews had become the focus of Nazi hatred simply because of the latter's vicious ideology. In the current hatred against Muslims, though, one has to acknowledge the part played by the reaction to some of the nasty stuff done in the name of Islam: terrorism perpetrated or inspired by Al-Qaeda, violent protests against satirical cartoons, the repression of women in some Muslim communities, etc., etc.
Yet, still, one needs the contribution of racism and xenophobia to move on from these serious problems among Muslims to go against Islam as such, and against all of its believers. The overwhelming majority of Europe's Muslims are in fact peaceful and law-abiding people who are just trying to make ends meet. Banning the very symbol of their place of worship means telling them: "Hey, in our eyes, you are all dangerous. Your mere existence here is our problem."
Yet another Semitic people to hate
I know this mindless paranoia well, because we have a similar problem in Turkey with the Turkish racists. They despise the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, for its indeed despicable acts of terrorism. But then they channel their reaction toward all Kurds, not really looking at whether they really support the PKK or not, and moreover, not asking why those who support the PKK do so. "The problem," their motto reads, "is simply the Kurds themselves."
Turkish racism is ugly, to be sure, but so is the Swiss one. The core problem in the latter belief, as I said, renders down to the old idea of Aryan supremacy - the idea that European Nordic people, and their "civilized" way of life, are inherently superior to those of the Eastern Semites, who are "polluting" it.
In other words, anti-Semitism, an aptly coined term, continues. In 1940, the hated Semites were the Orthodox Jews whose darker skins, strange food, "dirty" beards, skull caps and long caftans were enough to make them deplorable to the Nazis.
In 2009, apparently, the hated Semites are now the Orthodox Muslims, whose darker skins, strange food, "dirty" beards, skull caps, long caftans, and, as a novelty, headscarves and chadors, are the problem.
Just too bad to be true.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at December 2, 2009 10:30 AM
”… Det socialdemokratiska partiets kamp för att bilda ett parti som skulle leda Sverige ut ur fattigdom och elände har för länge sedan dödats av dagens landsförrädiska patrask. Det borde vara dödsstraff på landsförrädare!
Det skitiga patrasket har INGENTING med folkets kamp att göra. Det socialdemokratiska parti som bildades och efter mycket möda och kamp, och slutligen genomdrev välfärden i vårt land, har dessa förrädare så gruvligt svikit så att idag återstår det Absolut Ingenting av folkets demokratiska parti … I n g e n t i n g ! …
… Idag talar sossarna om att ta hit obegränsat med utlänningar, sådana som under socialdemokratins ungdom benämndes svartfötter, sådana som tar våra jobb och förstör landet ...
Vi ska slänga ut ockupanterna från vårt vackra land, samtidigt som kujonerna i Sveriges riksdag kan vänta sig hårda straff för sitt svek …”
http://demokratbloggen.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Demokratbloggen at December 2, 2009 9:26 PM
A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://www.zaman.com.tr/multimedya.do?tur=cizgiyorum
Posted by: hurufi at December 2, 2009 10:12 PM
This Swiss vote is only one vote, driven unfortunately by xenophobes and other hysterics who have been fabricating some great Islamic threat. This fight isn't over yet.
There are many Swiss who are contemptuous of this anti-minaret idiocy. The Swiss constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression. It is heartening to know that the cantons of Geneva, Vaud, Neuchatel and Basel-City voted against the minaret-ban.
The anti-Islamic fear mongering is indeed like the Jewish bogeyman you have described with reference to "Der Ewige Jude", except of course that in this case it is the Muslim caricature that is front and center.
The Swiss overreaction is a projection from the paranoid mind of reactionaries because as you state, there are only 4 mosques in Switzerland (with minarets). The Ahmadiyya mosque in Zurich has a small minaret that would only be perceived as threatening by someone who is already looking for a fight.
The Swiss madness is really representative of the type of reactionary climate that is increasingly prevalent in Europe. What is worrisome is that the vote was successfully "engineered" by forces on the right and that close to 60% of Swiss bought into it. Islamophobes and their allies seem to be gaining the edge in Europe when it comes to infecting the popular mind with paranoia.
Statistically speaking the Swiss vote is a gross overreaction. The Muslim population of Switzerland is only 0.5%, so we are speaking of a mere fraction of the overall population. Moreover Swiss Muslims - far from being a visible threat - have had to set up their mosques in warehouses and factories. In Berne the main mosque is located in a former underground parking lot. Not exactly a prime location.
Amazingly this whole absurd tempest-in-a-teapot began not in reference to minarets on actual mosques. It started in Wangen bei Olten, where a row broke out over the decision of the Turkish cultural association to put a 6-meter high structure on its roof that sort of resembles a minaret. I have seen similar type structures on ornate Victorian style buildings. However since the Turkish association 'minaret' was somewhat pointy and lacked a weathervane the locals felt threatened apparently.
The Turkish association was discriminated against from the word go – and bear in mind we are talking about a cultural building. Local authorities blocked the building application. The Turks had to bring their case to the Justice Department before the decision was remanded. But even so the local xenophobes dug in and pushed the case all the way to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, where they failed with their appeal. This decision was later affirmed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. So in the end justice and sanity prevailed.
The targeting of the Turkish cultural association by local reactionaries clearly demonstrates that this hysteria in Switzerland, isn’t in fact just related to concerns about Islam – it goes beyond that to the targeting of Muslim people and their associations – in general.
Posted by: Hadji_Asvatz_Troov at December 3, 2009 8:01 AM
Your portrayal of the swiss vote as racism is a disgraceful slight on the integrity of the majority of swiss people.
this was a vote which expressed concern about islam, not racism towards semitic people. this is regardless of whether some racists voted for it - which i'm sure they did.
comparing it to the rise of nazism in 1930s adds insult to injury.
i often read your articles to help me obtain diverse views as you have seemed quite moderate and considered. not in this case. and i wont read you again
Posted by: burak dogan at December 3, 2009 6:02 PM
burak dogan: "Your portrayal of the swiss vote as racism is a disgraceful slight on the integrity of the majority of swiss people."
I disagree that Mr Akyol was comparing the Swiss anti-minaret vote to "the rise of Nazism". He was showing the ways in which extremists can lay out alleged "facts" in order to justify the targeting of a minority group and the twisted thinking that lies behind that.
Contrary to your claim that this vote reflected "a concern about Islam"... the lead-up to the vote would suggest that in fact it also reflects discriminatory attitudes toward Muslims in general. As I mentioned in my earlier post the impetus for this shameful vote was initially triggered by a row that broke out in Wangen bei Olten relating to a structure the Turkish cultural association proposed to put on the roof of its building. A structure by the way that is very far from resembling a minaret in the classic sense of the term.
Minarets are just a red herring in this attack on the rights and dignities of Muslim peoples in Switzerland. In that respect Mr Akyol's reference to the targeting of Jews mere decades ago in Europe, is entirely appropriate. Given the rise of right-wing populism and xenophobia in Europe, it isn't a stretch to believe that such atrocities could happen again.
Posted by: Hadji_Asvatz_Troov at December 3, 2009 10:28 PM
While I can see Mr. Akyol's point of view and understand the frustration with what could be deemed by some as a breach of religious freedom, the fact of the matter is that faith is not incumbent upon religious symbols. Would a Muslim be less of a Muslim if s/he were to pray to Allah in a minaret-less mosque or in the comfort of their home? The answer is no, in the same vein that infirm Catholics pray to God in a nursing home chapel instead of at St. Peter's Basilica (which is arguably the second greatest 'symbol' of Catholicism after Cavalry Hill). Spirituality and faith are a personal choice--a direct link by an individual to Unehana/Allah/God--and even if institutions or governments can attempt (successfully or not) to subvert it, in the end, the retention is faith is up to the individual. At the end of the day, despite the Swiss ban on minarets, Muslims can still practice their religion freely. After all, the truth of Allah--as shared by Muhammed--are much stronger than symbols, isn't it?
Posted by: Leilani Angel at December 6, 2009 2:40 PM
Leilani Angel...
If faith is not incumbent upon religious symbols, why is similar pressure not placed upon Hindus, Catholics and others to rein in the outward symbols of their faith?
Statuary and other outward symbols of Christian triumphalism can be found in many European town squares, along with high spires and incessant bell ringing. The bell ringing in some cases is so intrusive it has led to lawsuits in Italy and Spain on the part of people who have been driven to distraction by the clanging.
Freedom of religious expression either means what it says, or it doesn't. You can't ban minarets while turning a blind eye to ostentatious shows of faith on the part of other religions. Making minarets a 'special case' is clearly discriminatory.
Posted by: Hadji_Asvatz_Troov at December 8, 2009 10:30 AM
...Huh.
You've essentially invoked Godwin's Law.
But you've made a good job at paralleling Nazi portrayals of Jews with the stereotyping done by Islamophobes.
Leilani, while your comments on one's faith despite external symbolism is true to a degree, this wasn't about one's faith. It's about a community's expression of its faith in the society it allegedly belongs to.
And burak? If the vote was about concern about Islam, why do it when Swiss Muslims make up 0.5% percent of the population? Where's the treat of Islam to the Swiss people are there?
Mustafa may have been impugning the integrity of the Swiss people. But speaking as a Malay, we have a phrase, "Eat the chili, feel the heat". Why are you feeling the heat, burak?
Posted by: T-Boy at December 8, 2009 2:49 PM
Hadji Asvatz, you wrote:
"Statuary and other outward symbols of Christian triumphalism can be found in many European town squares, along with high spires and incessant bell ringing. The bell ringing in some cases is so intrusive it has led to lawsuits in Italy and Spain on the part of people who have been driven to distraction by the clanging."
Add to it the much more gross symbols of the dogmatic creed of secularism: Tight or scanty clothes of women that they wear in order to be sexy and eye-dazzling. A real torture for religious people, especially young men, who cannot yet make ends meet (thanks to the modern predatory-capitalist and modernist world order) and hence cannot get married and are compelled to be sexually stimulated all day...
Moreover, these "religious" symbols, the too aggressive symbols of the cult of secularism, are not rampant only in Switzerland but here at home in Turkey, supposedly a Muslim country where Muslims should have a say to defend their rights...
The difference between these symbols and those of Islam is that those of Islam are not torturesome like the former.
Posted by: Mustafa Râvî (Uğur Dinç) at December 15, 2009 4:41 AM
Mustafa Ravi,
I am not trying to pick on your comments but I could not stop myself commenting on your post regarding secularism, scanty clothes of women, and eye-dazzling sexy clothes.
How is secularism related to obscenity? Are all secularist girls professional looking women? And why are religious people offended by obscenity more than secularists? Why is it a torture for a religious young person and not for a secularist young person? Are you suggesting that a Muslim person has better morals than a secularist? If so, what do you base this premise on?
Also, what is your take on the optimum degree of openness at which one is no longer considered obscene? Face? shoulders? hair? feet (be careful with this one)?
So should we ban sexy clothing (I wonder how and who will decide on that) because our religious youngsters may have a difficult time keeping their hands to themselves? Should we put only our girls in hijab so that our male believers take a deep breath and save themselves from sin?
Assuming that I am male, if I am not sexually stimulated all day long when I see half naked women, does it mean that a)I am not young enough; b) I am not religious enough or c) both of the above? or assuming that I am a girl, can the same logic apply to me? Should I be stimulated by young tall handsome muscular men wearing tight t-shirts and pants? If not, am I a lesbian?
I have a suggestion. Why don't we teach our children that obscenity is ugly and that it can be dangerously provocative rather than dictating a certain way of behavior that makes us feel comfortable? Too reasonable and difficult?
Posted by: cingoz at December 23, 2009 7:42 PM
The Swiss case is nothing but discrimination. If churches are allowed so are the mosques if there is demand for it. I am not surprised that it happened in a nation of convenience with a cross on its flag (bad joke).
Posted by: cingoz at December 23, 2009 7:53 PM
I personally am against the Swiss ban of minarets, however I staunchly believe that before any Moslem criticizes, they should reflect on the mistreatment of religious minorities in their own nations. Once church bells are allowed to ring in Saudi Arabia, I will march with Moslems so that the Islamic call to prayer could also be heard in Switzerland. Untill then, my advice is to clean up your own home first.
Posted by: Jay at January 25, 2010 8:04 AM