My fellow AOL blogger Scott Johnson of Powerline has written a lengthy review of my book The Enemy at Home which was published in the New Criterion. I probably wouldn't have seen it--I thought the New Criterion went out of business years ago--but it's been reprinted elsewhere. The title of the piece is "D'Souza Goes Native."
I'm writing a lengthy response to conservative critics like Johnson which will expose their errors of fact and logic, and their massive ignorance of Islam. Here I simply want to comment on Johnson's title. "In the four years he claims to have spent studying America and the West through Muslim eyes," Johnson writes, "D'Souza appears to have gone native." Among Midwesterners who haven't traveled far from home, this kind of reference is considered highbrow.
But see how Johnson botches the whole concept and in the process reveals his own small-minded nativism. When a Western guy goes abroad and casts his lot with the foreigners, in the process abandoning the values of his own society, he is said to have "gone native." But I am a native of Mumbai, India. I grew up in a multireligious and multicultural world where Hindu, Muslim and Christian influences were closely integrated. I am from one of the oldest Christian families in India. I learned English as well as two native Indian languages. From childhood I was exposed both to Western ideas, imported into India through the British, as well as non-Western ideas and influences.
Voluntarily, I came to America and became a citizen. So if I have "gone native," I have gone native in America. I have assimilated to the American way of life, not by osmosis, but deliberately and deliberatively, and I have given the reasons for my change of heart in my book What's So Great About America. Since I have a good knowledge of both Western and non-Western cultures, I approached the leading thinkers of radical Islam in an attempt to study what their ideas are, and why they are winning so many converts to their nefarious cause. My objective is to understand the enemy, so that we can fight him better.
Unable to grapple with a guy who actually knows other cultures from within, who has a real knowledge of the Muslim world, and who doesn't succumb to the rabid Islamophobia characteristic of Johnson and some others on the right, my philistine fellow blogger can do no better than accusing me of "going native." Next time remind me to bring my prayer rug.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 2)
16. How can you claim to be a 'culture warrior,' let alone a leader in that long running debate, and not be familiar with the New Criterion?
Kinda seems like claiming to be a soldier but not being familiar with those little metal things called "bullets."
Ross at 5:59PM on Mar 1st 2007
17. As a person who has no use for spirituality or the "moral" guidelines it offers, I disagree that secularism in our country is the enemy. I refuse to think that we should lower the standards of this country and feign "righteousness" to stave off Muslim extremists. Why do we turn to the problem to solve the problem? Belief in God is fine, Belief in religion is what's wrong. Instead of saying "look, we're devoutly religious too! The 60s were so different than the 50s because of the stifling "moral" expectations of the previous generations.
The ridiculous thing is America has never been more or less moral than it is now. People have always had their immoral thoughts and behaviors, the only difference now is possibly people are just sick and tired of having to hide their basic human urges and desires. Religion has never been anything but constraints on natural man's natural behavior. Women are stoned for being raped in Islamic countries, do we want to be moral like them?
I rebuff the idea alone. I will not be forced to act like a "moral" Christian to placate a bloodthirsty God-mongrel. There's little evidence through out history as to the superior morality of the religious nuts. Just look at Ted Haggard.
I think instead of playing Muslim house we should be spurning the problem's cause, organized religion. God should be a private affair, not something dictated by madmen in turbans or crucifixes.
Donovan Bock at 9:33PM on Mar 1st 2007
18. Mr D'Souza:
Had I not know otherwise, I would have assumed from your appetizer response (above) that your vocation was that of a fourth grade teacher in some underfunded part of the country. Your juvenile reaction to Mr Johnson's eloquent and informative review appears to complement the change in acuity he suggests has occured somewhere between this book and your earlier works.
I'm not sure what exactly constitutes "rabid Islamophobia" in Mr Johnson's piece but as he indicates you should have initiated some rabid literature searching in order to support your [specious] arguments. Does your rancor derive from having been "outed" for missing so many important references (even some by bin laden!) of high relevance to your thesis?
Considering your academic status and prior accomplishments you should expect criticism of something of yours that is as half-baked as the present book to be sharp and cold. The fact that your central premise does not ring true or garner respect *except* among the ignorant and the highly erudite should make you appreciate the input of thoughtful reviewers like Mr Johnson.
Start watering and fertilizing your laurels instead of laying on them.
lycaste at 11:14PM on Mar 1st 2007
19. It's sad to see you like this, Mr. D'Souza. I've admired you and your writing for some time, but your refusal to see what is truly going on is frustrating. Furthermore, this response strikes me as quite churlish.
Very sad. We're sorry to have lost such a bright man who used to carry the torch of freedom and America so boldly.
Jen at 11:04AM on Mar 2nd 2007
20. SouthernGal sees the anger at Islamist radicalism as a "drumbeat of seething, nativist, creepy culture mania." Could have been from the pen of D'Souza himself. Perhaps both SouthernGal and Dinesh are one and the same. Perhaps they are collectively a double agent only pretending to make excuses for Islamic terror while doing it in such a ludicrous way as to further discredit it, and themselves. If so, good job, guys. Nice of you to throw yourselves on your swords.
JBK at 6:35PM on Mar 2nd 2007
21. I'm just wondering, Mr. D'Souza -- how much did the Saudi government pay you to write and publish their pro-Islamic, anti-American propaganda?
David O'Brien at 11:14AM on Mar 4th 2007
22. Mr. D'Souza purports to have a "real knowledge of the Muslim world." I wonder how he managed that. As a woman who once belonged to a traditional Islamic society, I know that traditional muslim women (and they are even now the majority among all muslim women), are not in the habit of spending time alone with unrelated men, freely expressing their opinions about matters of importance to their community. Is Mr. D'Souza saying he "knows" these communities although direct contact and first-hand knowledge with something like half of it's memebers would surely have been denied to him? Or is he implying that the opinions of secluded muslim women should really not be allowed to get in the way of his extolling the virtues of patriarchy?
Yasmin Azad at 5:31PM on Mar 5th 2007