The same Christianity that produced Saint Francis of Assisi and Mother Theresa also produced children's crusades and Spanish conquistadors who burned native Americans alive 13 at a time (according to the 16th-century Spanish Dominican priest, Bartolomé de las Casas) in honor of the Twelve Apostles and Jesus Christ. It also produced American Seung-Hui Cho who killed 32 students and himself at Virginia Tech and American John Wayne Gacy, Jr., who raped and murdered 33 young men and boys in Chicago, Illinois, in the 1970s.

The same Judaism that produced Martin Buber, Emanuel Levinas, or Primo Levi also produced the Stern Gang, Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein.

But the knee jerk reaction of blaming Islam and Muslims, in general, or looking for delusional links to "al Qaeda," for the horrific murders at Fort Hood points to something far more fundamental, overdue, and urgent -- namely something of a psychological barrier for Americans to accept the Islamic component of their own society, culture, and history.

To avoid singling out Islam as diabolical, it is imperative for Americans to come to terms with the collectively repressed fact that by far the most important social uprising of their 20th century -- namely the civil rights movement of the 1960s -- is not as exclusively a Christian phenomenon as it is made out to be: The towering figure of a Muslim revolutionary named Malcolm X is of great importance in the history of that movement.

So here we have Dabashi, a Mohammedan and a university professor, claiming that:

1. Mohammedanism isn't to blame for the actions of Mohammedans, because Christians and Jews have done bad things too. The real problem is that we Americans are just prejudiced against Eeslam.

Thing is, Christians and Jews are going against their religions when they murder, and are thought to be punished in the afterlife. Mohammedans are following their religion when they murder, and are thought to be rewarded in the afterlife.

Ironic that a follower of the most repressive, intolerant, and "fundamentalist" religion in the world is using the apologism by religious relativism tactic.

2. Malcolm X, a guy who thought black people were superior to white people (who were were "devils") and who rejected Dr. King's policy of nonviolence, represents a beneficial contribution of Islam to our society. Yes, this is a serious claim, and yes, college students apparently shell out hundreds of dollars to take classes from the man making it.

Another irony that I can't leave unmentioned is that, while this man is arguing that Mohammedans (Malcolm X) contributed to civil rights for black people in the U.S., it was they who first sold black Africans into slavery to begin with.

This article goes to show a couple of things: firstly, that most university professors are even more worthless than I had originally thought, having no ground in reality or desire to have any, and secondly, that Mohammedanism and leftism truly have much in common... they are certainly united in their hatred of western culture and civilization. ]]>http://karenhowes.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/25/wwpd-what-would-the-pilgrims-do.htmlKaren Howes2009-11-25T21:00:00Z2009-11-25T21:00:00ZIt's that time of year again... the time to spend $200 on food, then spend 8 hours preparing it, 20 minutes eating it, and 2 more hours cleaning up.

Why? Because it's Thanksgiving, and stop asking questions.

Seriously, though... even though it's a pain in the butt, it's a time to gather with family and friends and to be thankful to God for all that we have.

But first, let's look at some of the history behind Thanksgiving...

Free the slaves, eat the turkey

1863 was apparently "Proclamation Year" for the 16th president of the U.S., Abraham Lincoln. Most of us learned in history class about the Emancipation Proclamation, which decreed that slaves in Confederate states were now free.

I suspect a lot fewer of us ever heard of the Thanksgiving Proclamation, which made the formerly unofficial holiday of Thanksgiving an official one, to be celebrated on the last Thursday of each November.

What did the Pilgrims really eat?

On Thanksgiving, it's customary here in the U.S. to eat turkey, mashed potatoes, stuffing, green bean casserole, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie-- and then to plotz in front of the TV and watch football.

I've never stopped to really think about it, but what was on the table during that first feast (which was really more of a fall harvest festival than a "thanksgiving") for the newly-arrived pilgrims who had come here on the Mayflower? I decided to find out.

The traditional Thanksgiving menu we know today was more of a Victorian thing than a colonial thing; if you want the authentic, original meal, here's what to put on your shopping list:

1. Venison
2. Duck
3. Lobster
4. Eel
5. Turnips
6. Leeks
7. Onions
8. Radishes
9. Indian corn
10. Berries
11. Nuts
12. Potatoes (Pilgrims didn't have them)
13. Green bean casserole (forget that too)
14. Cranberry sauce (uh-uh)
15. Pumpkin pie (nope)

Some of these items might be hard to find at your local supermarket.

The feast would have been very meat-heavy and fatty compared to today's meals because people back then physically worked so much harder that their bodies needed more protein and fat; most 17th century people literally couldn't survive on an all-vegetable or even mostly vegetable diet.

Everything was either boiled or roasted-- no fancy stoves, oil, or pans to saute veggies. Surprisingly, though, the English at this time used spices liberally on their food. The pilgrims brought some spices over with them, but also found herbs in the New World.

But what did the Pilgrims drink?

Although the beverage of preference for these English pilgrims was beer (see, they weren't as stiff and stodgy as we imagined they were), they had not been able to bring any. They were forced to make due with water-- fortunately for them, the ice-cold water in Massachusetts was generally free of dangerous bacteria and therefore safe.

Generally, people in past centuries didn't drink plain water. Although they didn't know about bacteria or germs, they did know that people who drank water often got sick, and that those who stuck with alcohol didn't.

Only later, when the colonists began receiving shipments of barley from England, would they be able to make beer again.

Pilgrim table manners

These 17th century Engish people, unlike their native guests who simply ate when they were hungry, had set mealtimes; "dinner", the main meal of the day, was eaten at around noon.

They were also pretty class-conscious; the diners were seated according to rank of importance, and the best food was placed next to the most important people. The diners didn't sample everything on the table they way we do, but ate only what was closest to them.

There was no concept of different courses, either, so food was served all at once, and people didn't eat things in any particular order. The children were expected to serve the adults.

There were no forks; they had only knives and spoons (which were held like shovels rather than like pens).

It was considered bad manners to spit or pick your teeth during the meal, or to break wind at the table or to look like you were doing so. These are still things that are bad manners, by the way.

Oh, and the Pilgrims didn't dress all in black all the time or wear buckles. Buckles on the pilgrims, like horns on viking helmets, were a quaint fabrication.

My family is actually planning to have a rib roast this year instead of turkey, which should be awesome-- my brother's in charge of the roast, and he's a great cook.

Then on Friday my sister is coming to visit, so I probably won't be around much from now through the weekend.

Have a wonderful and happy Thanksgiving, all!