Working In These Times

Wednesday Aug 25, 2010 7:00 am

Working-Class Rage Erupts Over Proposed Islamic Center Near ‘Ground Zero’

By Michelle Chen

Park 51 opponents demonstrate at a community meeting.   (Photo by Getty Images)

Bruce Springsteen music blared on the streets of Lower Manhattan on Sunday at a rally against a proposed Islamic cultural center, Park 51, located a few blocks from Ground Zero. One scene from the protest, captured on a YouTube video, reflected the oddly populist tone of the opposition to the so-called (severely mislabeled) “Ground Zero Mosque.”

A man in a white cap, later identified as a union carpenter, was mistaken for a Muslim by a tough-looking crowd. A hostile exchange ensued with another man wearing a hard-hat, while the mob surrounded them with anti-Muslim chanting. After bystanders diffused the confrontation, the Wall Street Journal reported, someone in the crowd cried, “Yo, we’re against Muslims, not each other, man.”

Like the folksy vitriol of the Tea Partiers, working-class solidarity has lately come to mesh with a phalanx of rage over the proposed development, which critics see as an insult to the victims of 9/11. The blend of class anxiety and right-wing ideology has crystallized into a campaign known as the “Hard Hat Pledge,” an online declaration that encourages building-trade workers to vow not to participate in the construction of Park 51. Launching a preemptive strike against the community center, the manifesto proclaims, “Without us this sacrilige [sic] cannot be built.”

Now, you might expect this controversy to serve as fodder for the xenophobic screeds of blowhards like Newt Gingrich. But why would blue-collar New Yorkers enlist their labor power in the anti-mosque crusade?

Leave aside the fact that the proposed community center is not a mosque but a YMCA-like recreational facility, supported by many community groups. From a worker's standpoint, aren't there potential new jobs that could come from Park 51? And wouldn't the interfaith development add some much needed color and economic activity to an area still marred by a ragged hole where the Twin Towers once stood?

Yet some workers see it as a matter of symbolism. Manhattan construction worker L.V. Spina, for example, told the Daily News, "Hell, you could do it next to my house in Rockaway Beach, I would be fine with it. But I'm not fine with it where blood has been spilled."

To explore the supposed labor angle in the no-mosque-in-my-backyard movement, In These Times caught up with Andy Sullivan, the construction worker (and former Ground Zero volunteer) who launched the Hard Hat Pledge on his blog, Blue Collar Corner.

Sullivan did agree with supporters of Park 51 on one point: that the debate has spiraled away from the proposed project itself.

“It's not just the mosque now,” he said. President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's defense of the Park 51 project show that “It's just another example of the ruling class once again going against the will of the people. And it's time we stood up... Enough is enough.”

The pledge has reportedly gathered several thousand signers. Sullivan claimed they include not only local workers in the building trades, but also businesses in the building sector and many other supporters around the country.

While saying he respects civil liberties, Sullivan framed his argument in the rhetoric of economic justice, revealing the social frustration fueling the debate around the mosque meme. “Most people right now are living the American Dream in reverse... The middle class is gradually racing to lower class, almost to poverty class,” Sullivan said.

But what does this have to do with the proposed community center? In Sullivan's view, the elite supporters of the development are essentially telling desperate workers, “'We have jobs for you and money for you. But you have to sell your values and principles and your soul.... and then you can participate in building this brilliant victory mosque so the whole world can hear the message that radical Islam took down the United States.'"

Activists might read such statements as a sign that class antagonism has been co-opted by bigoted conservatives. On the other hand, the Hard Hat Pledge encapsulates a strand of populism with deep historical roots: the reaction of a marginalized underclass to deep perceptions of instability and alienation. Park 51 has become a lightning rod for reactionary emotions, which are in turn easily hijacked by those waging ideological war on religious pluralism.

Teacher and union member Linda Milazzo blogged at Alternet about the dangerous collusion of labor and right-wing agendas:

Unions exist to negotiate the best possible work environment and compensation for their members. However, nowhere do unsubstantiated fear, contempt for religion, or resurgent memory factor into union contracts as negotiable provisions for worker rights and protection.

Actually, Milazzo's warning about unions is a bit off, since the Hard Hat brigade so far appears to be detached from formal unions. The Building Trades Employers' Association told the Daily News that while union leaders understood why Park 51 might upset some workers, “unions have not yet taken a 'formal position'" on the issue. (The BTEA did not offer any further comment about its position to ITT.)

Neutrality on Park 51 won't fly with the activists who see the controversy as a potentially catalyzing issue for progressives. Michael Letwin, a coordinator for New York City Labor Against the War, told ITT that enlightened elements in the labor movement should see the anti-Muslim firestorm as a platform for broaching fundamental issues of civil rights and social equity:

New York City Labor Against the War deplores the witch-hunt against Park51, including attacks on it from within the construction trades. Racism and Islamophobia have no place in the labor movement.

The hysteria against Park51 reflects a well-financed campaign to divide working people by scapegoating Arabs, Muslims, immigrants and people of color for the deepening economic crisis. It is no surprise that its leaders are against labor unions, Social Security, unemployment benefits, national health care, and compensation for Ground Zero first responders.

Their hate campaign also aims to bolster increasingly unpopular wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, while defending Israeli apartheid. This explains participation of the Anti-Defamation League and other "mainstream" witch-hunters. Both abroad and at home, workers have paid a terrible price for such war, occupation and colonialism.

There's more than one battlefront at Ground Zero. Turn back to Sunday's showdown between the carpenter and the hard hat. Suddenly, the drab building slated to house Park 51 fades into the backdrop. The mob zeroes in on a fellow worker mistaken for “the enemy." The crowd's roar drowns out any suggestion of reasoned discussion. Instead, we see a grainy image of America at war with itself, struggling for the soul of a neighborhood fraught with unfulfilled promises.

4 comments  · 

Comments

Ohioan 26 Aug 2010
12:39 am

It is no doubt the duty of the state to guarantee the rights of citizens. If the construction of a Moslem center of any sort is in keeping with local laws, then the state must grant the builders the right to build it.

On the other hand, it is my opinion that the people who came up with the idea of building a center for Islam anywhere near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center show a lack of sensitivity for propriety and the feelings of one’s neighbors comparable to that of some of our former presidents.

Mr Spina, quoted in the article, expresses the situation quite well:

Manhattan construction worker L.V. Spina, for example, told the Daily News, “Hell, you could do it next to my house in Rockaway Beach, I would be fine with it. But I’m not fine with it where blood has been spilled.”

No Alternative 26 Aug 2010
1:45 am

Working class?  This is all coming from neocons and evangelicals!

whattheheck 26 Aug 2010
6:51 am

E Pluribus Unum

I have begun to understand the saying in the Old West, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian,” —we may soon see it applied to these guys today.

We seem to be only think in terms of either/or threats. There may be multiple simultaneous threats. We can have people trying to control our lives and take over the country in multiple ways for different goals. Muslim extremists or financial opportunists and politicians seeking more power need not be working together to benefit from the actions of each other.

Much of the talk on economic issues (or the use of steroids by athletes) is distracting and may be politically designed to do just that. 

Anyone familiar with the rise of Naziism has seen how gradually the threat to individual freedom increased. Today it appears to be the same insidious technique used by Islam and political/economic elites among us.

The current economic malaise came about over a couple of decades or more. Gradual removal of regulations, raising of margins for the biggest banks, lowering of lending standards and ratings laxness — leading to the polluted bond tranches.

The last couple of years have tripled U.S. national debt, destroyed millions more jobs and savings plans, nationalized major industries and created forced purchases of health insurance. Change way beyond anything I could have believed in!  What part of this top-down control would Hitler have rejected?

Now we are hearing the Muslims want to build a symbol to honor the victims of 9/11.  BS!   Obviously we will not shuffle them off to a reservation somewhere, nor will we be shooting them on sight. But if we allow this to happen after only a decade, we deserve to be thought of as the decadent idiots the radicals believe us to be.

I for one, am sick of hearing all the PC, diversity,“We’re no better than anyone else talk.” If we are no better, we should remember we used to at least try to be. This requires leaders who are first and foremost promoting America’s unity NOT diversity! We all are inherently different and don’t need to seek more differences.  “E Pluribus Unum” is what made this country what it once was and can do it again. Politicians who work using the divide and conquer technique are destroying the “United” part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFzFIDbKpg

If we aren’t watchful we may see an extreme reaction going either direction.

Amanda Tattersall 1 Sep 2010
12:33 pm

This is a really complex issue, and i applaud the writer for taking the issues of working class division seriously. Its too simplistic to dismiss “blue collar” fears as reactionary ... there is a responsibility on progressives to engage with this organizations rather than dismissing them.

Indeed, in other countries and contexts, labourers have been the key leaders of progressive social justice causes. In Australia the builders laborers union used to set up “Green Bans” that defended the urban environment from over-development (like Jane Jacobs in NYC).

So .. what is to be done with engagement of some of these groups? There is a coalition that has emerged to respond defend the Islamic Center - New York Neighbors for American Values. To me, a challenge for them is to strategically engage some of these core constituencies - like the labor unions, as part of their work. Effective coalitions are not just about taking action but building relationships. Indeed, I write about these kinds of strategies in a new book called Power in Coalition, and have written about the New York Neighbors strategy here:

http://powerincoalition.com/2010/08/coalitions-again-prove-useful-as-show-of-community-support-for-new-york-mosque/

Please Login to Comment register a new account »

To participate in discussions, please register an account.

retrieve lost password »