In this article, Learning Arabic Is Controversial?, I’m assuming that the author just misses the point. He states “to single out a language program simply because of someone’s ethnicity or interest in language development” is a bad thing. Well, if that were the cause of the trouble, he would be right.
The author attempts to further establish his case by stating, “No one got this bent out of shape when I was taught BASIC in middle school.” I don’t recall any international trouble over BASIC programmers trying to kill people, either. Since the original proposition was faulty to start with, it’s no surprise that equating a programming language with a violent ideology comes across as incredulous.
According to the article to which he was responding, the brouhaha was not really over ethnicity or interests in linguistics.
I grew up during the Cold War. Since my late teens I’ve been the furthest from having socialist sympathies precisely because I’ve read Marx, Lennin, Hitler, etc. I could argue Das Kapital with the local self-proclamed commies on my university campus. (At least the ones that had the capacity to operate beyond raw dogmatism.)
However, regardless of a person’s attitude toward totalitarianism, the fact that I was interested in the Russian language and people by and large garnered respect. Anecdote from other Russian-speaking people I’ve met during those years corroborated my experience.
I suspect that the same is true today for serious students of Arabic and Farsi.
So, what did get people’s hackles up? Rubbing things associated with communism in people’s face.
What gets people’s hackles up these days? Rubbing things associated with radical jihadist Islam in people’s face.
If during my days a school were opened for the purpose of teaching “Russian and Russian culture”, it would have raised eyebrows. That’s perfectly understandable. Handled smartly, it could have been quite successful.
If a Russian immigrant were the principal, and said principal yanked the public’s chain by defending loaded words on T-shirts, and engaging in other thinly-disguised political rhetoric, there would have been a lot of justifiable tensions. Being a representative of the school, the image of the whole school would naturally have been severely damaged.
This does not constitute bigotry on the part of the public. Knowingly rubbing offensive things in people’s faces doesn’t fall under the category of “kind” or “courteous”. It’s called yanking their chains.
Are Things Different Today?
During the Cold War, people in the public eye tended to be discrete and indirect about their pro-communist opinions.
Where culture differs today from then, there exist those in prominent media and political positions who openly express their hatred for the United States. Part of their rhetoric involves glorifying those who would like to see us dead. It seems that their mentality is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. In other words, anybody who hates America they see as a fellow traveller, if not an ally.
This causes the average American to become uncomfortable. Do people therefore hate all things Middle Eastern? Certainly not. However, when somebody yanks their chain, there will be a reaction. With repeated yanking, people tend to become resentful of the yankers and those they associate themselves with. To point out that tension exists should elicit the “Well, Duh!” response.
If Almontaser was not intelligent enough to know that “intifada” doesn’t have explicit political meaning, she should not be the principal. I assume that she’s not so foolish. Therefore I would assume that she’s toying with people. That’s not appropriate behavior either way given the fact that there are many people who have legitimate concerns over the expansion of radicalized Islam.
People have legitimate concerns about the establishment of something that could become a radical madrassa. Anybody who wants to establish a school public or private that has an emphasis on Middle Eastern language and culture must know this, and will have to take care to avoid any appearance that could cause antagonism.
It’s too bad that the principal they hired was not on the same page, because now the school has a public relations problem, and people who have enrolled in the school face suspicion.
Would You Like Some Cheese with That Whine?
We can whine and cry about these things being “unfair”, or we can grow up and be accountable for our decisions.
The article states that “The verbal attacks caused Colon to pull her son out of the school.” It further quotes others whining about negative reactions. Yes, there are always those who think you stink, and will raise a stink to let others know their opinion. Nay-sayers have existed since the earliest times. However, to lump those who have legitimate concerns with the stinkers isn’t appropriate either.
Colon chose to withdraw her son rather than stand up boldly for her decision. We have no idea whether she did anything to provoke others, and I assume she didn’t. Regardless, there is no shame in stating, “I preferred reduced trouble with my associates over my boy attending that school”. It’s a legitimate personal decision. So would be putting up with the criticism until it died down. Neither decision is inherently better than the other.
I wish the school the best, and hope that they carefully screen their employees to ensure that they have brains and are on the same page as the founders.
One has to be smart about these things and not yank the chains of your potential customers in a free market.
STGM
Personal note: Please don’t send me long strings of Russian. I’ve unfortunately let my skill go, and can’t say much more these days than «Я не потамаю по–русски!»
