Steve Earle’s
musical portrayal of John Walker Lindh reiterated a lot of the thoughts that I
have been having about both the attacks and the aftermath of the attacks. When
Elshtain first used the word evil, I
immediately looked at the situation from the perspective of the enemy. Although
I can’t say for sure, isn’t it safe to assume that the members of al Qaeda and
the others that attacked us see us as evil? Isn’t that partially why they
attacked us, the “infidels”? With that being said, I think that Earle does
something necessary with “John Walker Blues”: he shows the other side of the
conflict. Although most Americans may not care about the religious reasons
behind the members of al Qaeda, those motives say a lot not only about the
reasons behind the attacks but also about the nature of the enemy. I realize
that Earle focuses on John Walker Lindh for specific reasons—as mentioned in
his video interview, he believes that he has been wrongfully accused and
punished for a crime he never committed. However, beyond John Walker Lindh,
Earle’s message speaks more of the motives of the attackers, in my opinion. By
including Islamic prayer—A shadu la ilaha illa Allah/ There is no God but God—Earle
reminds listeners that some of the men acting in the attacks were acting for
their god and their religion. Even further, he croons, “…sometimes a man/ Has
to fight for what he believes/And I believe that God is great, all praise due
to him/And if I should die I’ll rise up to the sky,” a message that describes
the expectations that some of the members of al Qaeda held. I realize that we
may never understand fully why these men acted in the way that they did.
However, Earle’s lyrics, such as the lines: “We came to fight the jihad and our
hearts were pure and strong/As death filled the air, we all offered up our
prayers/And prepared for our martyrdom,” suggest the religious agendas that
some of the members of al Qaeda had. With that being said, I believe that we
come from a country that boasts religious freedom, and Earle’s song challenges
how much we accept when it comes to beliefs that we do not understand. Also, I
believe Earle made a bold but necessary move by releasing his song. In an era
of music told from the victims, Earle dared to tell the story of the attackers,
catching the attention of the listeners and the media alike and challenging
Americans to question how much we truly value the freedom of religion.
Bethany, your post captures something that the critics of Earle typically ignored. While he did seek sympathetically to imagine the world from John Walker's point of view, he doesn't excuse Walker. He doesn't, for example, treat Walker as duped or "brainwashed."
ReplyDeleteAs I was listening to the song by Steve Earle, I realized that, even though there was so much controversy surrounding it, Earle never really comes out in defense of John Walker and his alleged actions. In a time when Americans wanted answers and wanted to know why such horrible acts could have taken place on American soil, Earle tries to give us the answer by opening up about the religious beliefs of the jihadists. I do not see him taking a side in this song. I believe that he is just using this song to get Americans thinking about what the mentality of the terrorists may have been and may still be. I agree, Dr. Lauritzen, in saying that Earle does not excuse Walker. This song, to me, was Earle's way of trying to get Americans thinking... thinking about what the "other side" might give as their reasoning for the attacks.
ReplyDeleteJohn, remember how the 9/11 Commission Report called for "imagination"? It seems as if you're arguing that Earle is imagining what motivated John Walker Lindh--as a kind of mediating figure between American culture and Muslim cultures--to convert. In a sense, too, the song poses John Walker's conversion as something that could be seen as conservative--he was attracted to the life of meaning that Islam seemed to provide--even though Steve Earle has been attacked as a liberal.
ReplyDeleteI think that we have to understand that, yes, the radical Islam that is fighting us using their religious beliefs as a guide. However, what they are using to guide them are not the traditional Islamic beliefs, but a skewed and radical version. As Earl sang, “We came to fight the jihad and our hearts were pure and strong/As death filled the air, we all offered up our prayers/And prepared for our martyrdom,” What they were doing was not martyrdom according to traditional Islam. They are taking a fundamentalist interpretation. When a Muslim destroys himself as means to kill soldiers or other innocent people it is not martyrdom, but suicide and murder. It is not a rationally sound action. Elshtain touched on this in her article "Just War Against Terror" I think Steve's song sort of distorts the morality of the problem at hand. Yes, as Americans we are accepting and tolerant of others religious beliefs. That is truly a great blessing! But I do not believe that we have to accept and tolerate an extremist religion if it threatens our right to our own life.
ReplyDeleteDavid, that's a fair critique of my comment; in a sense, that distinction (between mainstream Islam and radical Islam) was harder for Americans to make until 9/11. In fact, it may have been nearly impossible for John Walker to make at the same, and all evidence suggests he didn't know that there was going to be a 9/11. The irony was that he was trying to fight a "just war" on behalf of the innocent!
ReplyDeleteI do agree with David's comment. I don't believe that any religion that threatens our lives should be considered okay just because of our belief of freedom of religion. With that being said, I don't think that Earle was arguing against that fact, either. He never blatantly excuses the attacks because they were an act motivated by religious beliefs. However, he presents that as an option; maybe they weren't "evil," as Elshtain is so quick to assume. Maybe they had good intentions--and when I say "good," I don't mean that killing people can produce any good; I certainly don't believe that, but, for people belonging to a radical faith, anything is believable. It's all very controversial. However, my main point is that Earle never defends the radical Islamists. He simply presents them in a more forgivable, less "evil" light. Overall, I think his song was necessary in a time of so much hatred.
ReplyDelete