National identity is negotiated between legal citizenship and cultural custom

Evidence

In this murky situation, national identity ends up being defined by a negotiation between law (legal citizenship) and custom (true Americanness). Shryock then takes the further step of pointing to the shortcomings of Islamophilia, the multicultural opposite of Islamophobia, which claims that Muslims are “good” while still sharing assumptions with Islamophobia about the nature of citizenship and national identity. One problem is that Muslims do not benefit from unity-building exercises like Holocaust commemorations in Europe, or American affirmative action—existing stereotypes condemn Muslims for retrograde positions on religion, gender, and politics. Surprisingly enough, Muslims in the United States are nevertheless very trusting in public institutions, perhaps because they are generally well educated and prosperous in comparison with European Muslims. — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 52

Categorization

• XREF: The Islamophilia/Islamophobia symmetry (both share assumptions about citizenship) echoes the earlier ‘Grafting & Growth’ dialectical structure and invites comparison with how Grosfoguel frames tolerance. — connects to: American identity is defined by race and citizenship proxies for national loyalty — Sahar F. Aziz, Sticks and Stones, the Words That Hurt:…, 33; Citizenship of Maple Nation is enacted by receiving gifts and treating them right — Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom,…, 609; State commissions manufactured ethnic categories and attached graded citizenship rights to them — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 560
• QUESTION: What explains US vs European Muslims’ divergent institutional trust — does the US case actually complicate the book’s ‘Muslims as frightened-of’ framing?
• DEFINE: Islamophilia defined as the multicultural mirror that still shares Islamophobia’s premises about who counts as a true citizen.