Good and bad Muslim labels encode imperial hierarchy and shift easily
Evidence
The good/bad Muslim typology can be understood as imperial ethnocentric racism in that it is productive of racialized constructions of “them” in contrast to “us” rooted in imperial ambitions. Those who agree with us are friends, even if that friendship is contingent, while those who disagree are enemies. Imperial ethnocentrism isn’t simply about viewing the world from the vantage point of one’s nation or ethnic group but also about the tendency to see those who are part of colonized or less powerful nation states, or subordinated groups within imperial nations, as inferior. “They,” whether as friend or enemy, are inferior or subordinate to “us.” Even as allies they are at best adjuncts within a larger power dynamic. Such articulations are not readily legible as racist because they are so deeply ideological and naturalized. Moreover, these are unstable classifications, with “good” turning “bad” quite easily. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 390
Categorization
Category: Definitional Content
- DEFINE: Defines imperial ethnocentric racism as the analytic framing for the good/bad Muslim duality.
Related
- The good versus bad Muslim label tracks support for US empire rather than facts. (similarity 0.86)
- Good and bad Muslim designations follow support for US empire (similarity 0.85)
- Imperial racism subordinates even allied Muslims to imperial power (similarity 0.84)
- Anti-Muslim racism operates through contradictions and unstable imperial terrain, not a well-oiled machine. (similarity 0.79)
- A good-bad Muslim demarcation barred Islamophobia from becoming a political priority. (similarity 0.79)
- Double consciousness makes Muslim leaders adopt the good-bad Muslim frame (similarity 0.78)