Racism against Arabs in this country has existed for decades. Arabs are the only ethnic group left that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against. This has been the case since long before 9/11. 9/11 only fueled anti-Arab sentiments. It is important to note the articles and research performed before 9/11 regarding treatment toward Arabs, in order to identify the continous problem. Abraham's article was far from alone. James Zogby, Jack Shaheen, Ray Hanania, and Nadine Naber are just a few of the scholars that have published articles and books detailing the descrimination, hate crimes, and mistreatment of Arabs in this country that has long existed as a civil rights issue all too often ignored. Therefore, I disagree that it is unfortunate that Abraham's article was published before he had the chance to include the heinous treatment of Arabs in the past five years. There have been plenty of other studies to identify that. In contrast, it is important to have articles like these dated before September 2001 as proof that this problem did not start on that horrific morning.

Before September 11th, I think that racism towards Arab Americans had already existed. However, post-September 11th, i think that the Anti-Arab sentiment of Americans came to the forefront of contemporary issues. Arabs were deemed as "terrorists" and very rarely thought of as anything else. I think that it is a shame that people can be so ignorant and uninformed to judge an entire race of people based on the actions of a few. Everyone needs to realize that there are going to be bad people in every race and every religion, and that it is unfair to label just one group of people as terrorists. People from every race and religion commit all sorts of atrosities, so why aren't they considered as terrorists? Why are only Arab people given this name?

I have vague but definite memories of the terrorist scares of the mid-80s; I did not, of course, know at the time that Reagan had declared a war on terrorism, or that incidents of 'terrorism' coming from non-Arab sources were downplayed by the media. Far from not being useful post-911, this article gives a historical background of the premeditated (and recycled) nature of the current administration's backlash.

9/11 mobilized hatred, and made a type of racism (which was already somewhat acceptible) a sign of patriotism. Hatred, once mobilized, affects people in many ways - for the battered wife, just as for the government, it provided an excuse and a motivator for those who can help; for those already comfortable, it bonded them through suffering and fear, polarizing the issue further.

I know that there was a lot of racism towards arabs before 9/11 but after that, i think the everyone was thought it was even more ok to be racist towards arabs or arab americans it was like they had an even better reason to hate Arabs. Most of this racism comes from ignorant people. Arab-americans had to deal with this greater fuse of hatred after 9/11 even though terrorists could come from any race or ethnicity. People dont like change and they dont like it when people look different from them. There is racism everywhere.

I think that this shows the racism that Arabs deal with, and ending with 9/11 shows that the Arabs are subject to hate from both sides. They struggle because they are Arab and Americans are too narrow-minded to accept them fully, and they are also victims of the violence because they live in America.
Although 9/11 isn't an element of Abraham's article the Anti-Arab sentiment still exists and is a constant factor in Arabs' lives, but that certain events feed the existing feelings. We see that the judgemental feelings exist even among other Arabs, which also feeds the racism. This shows that anyone can be racist despite their experiences.

Like Dana, the only real exposure that I have to anti-Arab sentiments came after the 9/11 attacks. But I think it safe to say the U.S. has always had it out for the Arab world in a way, because the culture is so differnt and because it is so easy to get people to rally around a cause when the "enemy" is clearly defined culturally.

However, concerning the other two pieces, the racism experienced is more complicated in that the instances involve people who "know better." i.e. the educated, even the culturally similar,as seen in "Spiced Chicken Queen." And also in the Serageldin piece, the reiteration of the lines "it's not about that" and "if two open-minded people like us can't discuss this issue sanely, no one can" work to show how the anti-Arab sentiments exist under the facade of educated worldliness. Just because people are exposed to Arabic culture and because they happen to be of that descent, does not mean that they haven't bought into the common stereotypes of Arabs. In "spiced chicken," Rana even grows impatient at how stereotypically meek and submissive and old-world Mzayyan is though she doesn't stop to think of her cultural strength and honor.
In regards to 9/11, and Arab associated terrorism in general, I would say that this tendency to draw distinctions, even among Arabs, between those who can be Americanized and those who are doomed to remain foreign, is what sustains anti-Arab racism.

The impact of bringing up September 11th at the end of both of the short stories we read really stresses the effect that those attacks had on Arab Americans. It shows all the issues Arabs were already dealing with and how those terrible attacks were just as hard for them. Not only were their loved ones at risk of being killed as well but they also had to deal with the prejudice that followed the attacks. Especially in Kahf's piece, where the ever present racism in society was made obvious and the struggles in particular of female Arabs.

Abraham's article as well gives better insight into the experience of Arab Americans. As Karren said, much racism and prejudice is due to narrow-mindedness and misunderstanding. These stories and this article allow for another perspective and understanding of a side to the story not always heard. It is important to have such stories and articles to eventually create tolerance/

The experience I have with anti-Arab sentiments is quite minimal. The town I grew up in wasn't the most open-minded of communities, and it was pretty much closed to anyone who wasn't a white anglo-saxon male. So it was quite interesting to read the Abraham article. I don't really know what I believe on the issue that the racism is linked to world events. Although, I do believe it's mainly linked to narrow-mindedness and misunderstanding (with a great deal of influence by world events).

I think the stories end with 9/11 for the shock value. It's put at the end to demonstrate the fact that Arabs are turning over a new leaf, "nothing will be the same again." It shows the end of one era and the beginning of another.

The article on anti-Arab racism was very detailed and involved. Since most of the events happened before I was born, I have no experiences to judge the article by. I do remember reading reports of an over ten-fold increase in anti-Arab incidents in the months following 9/11, which would seem to support the theory that much (although not all) of anti-Arab violence is linked to world events. In addition, the author's descriptions of Reagan baiting the Libyan president seems to mirror the allegations that Bush was dead set on starting a war with Iraq.

It's Not About That ends with 9/11 in order to make a powerful point about the prejudice underlying the relationship - it would tends to support the theory that anti-Arab racism tends to ebb and surge in relation to world events, but the constant tension is there throughout the story. While the initial break-ups might not have been 'about that,' it is obvious that the man's opinions are hurtful to the woman, and they certainly can't have helped the relationship. In the end, the cultural differences between the two are what prevents the two from reconciling.

Spiced Chicken Queen of Mickaweaquah, Iowa is a very interesting look at racial and gender prejudice, and how people are victims to it and they can also exploit it. Nobody in the story is purely innocent or guilty - Rana and Emad are shown to be critical of poorer and darker-skinned Arabs, while at the same time their suffering from post-9/11 inquiries is unjust. Mzayyan is a victim to her husband's beatings, while at the same time she exploits the judge's sexism and the government's racial profiling post 9/11 to have her husband thrown in jail and exported. There is the unanswered question of whether or not she is more like Melanie or like Scarlett, so are her tears real? The ambiguity is also shown in the earlier story about Queen Zenobia, and the many different versions that can be told of that story.