Quote:
Originally Posted by Resurrection
Yes the Khans were on stage because they're Muslim, and their family sacrificed greatly for America. That's the point, it was a direct rebuke of a Trump position on Muslims.
I don't even get how this is a point of contention.
|
I'm not so sure. It all represents the minefield of identify politics in general.
The problem is driving claims on aggregate or nominal issues down to the individual, and then driving the issues of the individual up to represent the aggregate. I think Corsi might agree on the logical and/or statistical danger in doing this.
The Khans made this mistake right in their very statements. He said that they represent Muslims and Muslims' sacrifice to America. Then she made a statement that Muslim terrorists as individuals cannot represent Muslim ideals (I'm paraphrasing). It's an odd bit of inconsistent logic. Those who cynically participate in identity politics and the olympics of oppression tend to be selective on these things.
It's also why it is important to examine the claims that Muslim Americans sacrifice as much as other Americans in the wars. Again, I don't like these examinations, but here we are. As far as I can tell, more American Muslims have died fighting FOR isis, than American Muslim soldiers have been killed fighting isis. (Maybe someone can fact check that for me.)
Khan then went on say that "many ethnic groups" are represented at Arlington. Fine. But if representation gives substance to your argument, then he is inviting a demographic analysis of how many Muslims are represented as deaths (low, when controlled for overall population), and in the military (also low). And once again, I detest such examinations, unless I need to counter them when raised.