Did Homophobia Corrupt Walker, the American Taliban soldier?

January 2, 2002 3:18 PM

Did Homophobia Corrupt Walker, the American Taliban soldier? Articles argues that there was more to the disturbance in Walker's life than merely reading Malcom X.
posted by Postroad (28 comments total)

It wasn't his upbringing, it was society's fault!

The article misses the point, falsifying the critiques so that they seem intolerant (e.g. blaming his father's gayness, though no such examples are cited) or nonsensical (e.g. blaming Marin liberalism, when it was really their conservatism that Walker embraced -- a thesis again unsupported by examples). Both analyses (this and the several to which it reacts) may be faulted for armchair psychologizing, of course. But what this article completely misses is the strong and insistent argument that Walker must bear responsibility for the choices he has made, even if those were some pretty dumb ones that give him great legal grief. This article doesn't address that point at all.

I think in the end this article is simply trying to attack homophobia without convincingly showing why Walker's case supports that argument, yet while suggesting that things that are "society's fault" absolve others of responsibility for their actions.

What's odd, of course, is that Walker comes close to being a gay-basher; I suppose it's nice that they can see him as someone worth defending, since that tones down certain rhetoric, but normally that wouldn't be the case.

Essentially, Walker's zig-zag tripi through the zeitgeist has got a lot of people confused, and trying to hijack unrelated arguments on top of his story.
posted by dhartung at 4:16 PM on January 2, 2002

I found it to be a thoughtful article.
posted by fleener at 4:31 PM on January 2, 2002

Wouldn't it be shocking if you read anything in the news about Middle Eastern Taliban soldiers' lives? I can just picture it...

"Did threats of hellish physical violence to his and his familie's persons, oppressive propoganda, and the alternative life full of poverty and sickness cause Abdulaziz Alomari to join the Taliban?"

It doesn't surprise me to see the US media scramble for excuses; how could one of our boys have been corrupted by these demons from Afghanistan? But still, isn't it a little rediculous that our media is going to such great lengths to make John Walker into a good guy, and at the same time condemning foreign terrorists to trial before a war tribunal? If anything, isn't John Walker more guilty than native Afghanis simply because (after considering the circumstances of both) he probably had more agency in joining the Taliban than the average soldier?
posted by zekinskia at 4:37 PM on January 2, 2002

I think in the end this article is simply trying to attack homophobia without convincingly showing why Walker's case supports that argument, yet while suggesting that things that are "society's fault" absolve others of responsibility for their actions

i'm with dhartung. just less eloquently.

some people make dumb choices. i have several ex girlfriends that are great examples of bad judgment on my part. Society's influence, and family pressures don't remove Choice. All this speculation about mr. Walker and he hasn't even had a trial or been on Oprah yet. I'm sure we will here all about his motivations once his first book gets published while he is in prison.
posted by th3ph17 at 4:46 PM on January 2, 2002

Good point, dhartung.

Let's not place analysis where it isn't needed. Walker as a person is a very property-basic formula...just another one of the immature, fad-ridden, 'I hate myself for being white' turds that seem to pop up everywhere in American culture. Given his supposed 'religious' convictions, I'm sure that he is in fact very homophobic. However, I do not beleive that a personal rift in his own life is what led him to justify his hatred of gays through later-found religious virtue. Like any other fad-whore, Walker probably had a completely different beleif system before his Muslim transformation (actually, this is a fact...read earlier posts about Walker's previous life of a gangsta rap & video games fan who lied about being 'black' repeatedly on message boards).

How many 'fad-whores' have you met in your own personal lives? You know, people who were into metal 10 years ago, grunge/alt 8 years ago, punk 5 years ago, emo 2 years ago, etc, etc? And not just to base this soley on the comfines of music, but have you ever met someone (usually of college age) who quickly aligns and detaches themself with every political flavor of the month that comes their way? I have. Beleive it or not, I have met a kid who went from Nazi Skinhead to Nationalists to Communist to Chirstian in 5 years!!!

I would not have such a problem with these immature, clueless douchebags who dance through every zeitgeist that comes to their atention if it were not for their propensity to want to push their own subjective views of the moment on everyone else. This is what pisses me off. Just like how the hippies of the 60's became the Wall Street of the eighties, if Walker wasn't caught in Afghanistan and returned eventually to the US, I bet every dollar I own that he would, at one point or another, have switched affiliations to a new and fresher fad once it came his way. His opinions, much like so many others like him, mean nothing to me. Fuck him.
posted by tiger yang at 4:59 PM on January 2, 2002

How many 'fad-whores' have you met in your own personal lives?

My ex-girlfriend, who is now a born-again Hippie after going from hippie to goth for a few years - all of them in her post-bikerchick days. Wish I'd known a bit more about her when we got together so I could have avoided that rollercoaster ride!
posted by RevGreg at 5:05 PM on January 2, 2002

tiger yang: When was being a skinhead hyper-fashionable or hep or trendy, exactly? As in, "Being into REM in 1981 (or being into neo-soul five years ago, or when Maxwell was just about the only neo-soul person around, or into Nirvana before the major label days, etc.) was sorta like being a skinhead in the days just before the Geraldo chair-throwing incident, when the movement sold out." Or something to that effect.
posted by raysmj at 5:10 PM on January 2, 2002

"When was being a skinhead hyper-fashionable or hep or trendy, exactly?"

1) In the 1980's, in the lower-eastside of New York during the CBGB hc matinee days.
2) In the late 60's & early 70's all over England. This was actually a huge problem....'Paki-bashing' or the beating of Pakistani immigrants in England were a national problem due to this 'fad'
3) In the late 70's,80's, & 90's in some southern US states
4) In the 1980's in Australia and New Zealand

Do you need some more referances?
posted by tiger yang at 5:22 PM on January 2, 2002

what tigeryang said.

Plus a whopping dollop of self-hatred. Black, Islamic, he seemed to want to be anything other than what he was- a rich white boy from Marin. And perhaps , to do something that might cause his utterly brain-dead parents to finally draw a line in the sand. On the last one, he somehow seems to have failed.

As Jim Goad says in his classic essay"The Underground is a Lie" to the zietgiest-mongering fadwhores tigeryang describes:

"you flush your self-repect down the toilet while scrambling to obey the edicts of boho taste. You're frightened senseless that others will think you're uncool...You squirm in the face of your own dullness...You are a fake, a bitchy little snitch who hasn't been hit enough"
posted by jonmc at 5:26 PM on January 2, 2002

tiger yang: Yeah. More info please. I grew up in the South in the '70s, was a college student in the South in the 1980s, spent my '20s and early 30s in the South in the 1990s. I was never aware of skinhead identification's being trendy (in the sense you implied) here in any part of the region at any time. It's the opposite of fashionable or hip or cool, etc., especially in a region where being forward-looking means overcoming a past racist history. (Not as trendy now, but I was a serious trend-follower for the longest time. Still . . .)
posted by raysmj at 5:28 PM on January 2, 2002

Central Gossip Agency: P.J. Corkery's 12/18 San Francisco Examiner column.

Michelangelo Signorile: "If what Corkery says is true, that events surrounding the breakup of the marriage affected John Walker, then it is absolutely relevant to the story of Walker’s journey and his actions." When a parent of a 16-year-old comes out as lesbian/gay (more correctly, bisexual, after all those years of heterosexual marriage), it's an upheaval for all concerned.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:04 PM on January 2, 2002

so. homophobia drove him to the land of nervous camels.
posted by quonsar at 6:13 PM on January 2, 2002

There was definitely some skinhead chic during the late-80's early 90's where I grew up (southwestern ontario, canada).

But what makes me laugh just as hard as the fad-whores are the anti-fad whores, who hate whatever is hyped, whatever is popular, whatever is new, just because it is hyped, popular or new. And then call themselves 'alternative' - yea, right.

Walker strikes me as somewhat of this set. He seems to have made a wholesale rejection of American culture and then sought out a culture to replace it, and what better than one that stands out as contra-distinct from that which he is looking replace? At least he didn't set himself into a leather chair at starbucks wearing a black turtle-neck and horn-rimmed glasses, bitching about capitalism between sipping his decaf latte and checking his email. Say what we will about his choices, he did put his money where his mouth is.
posted by holycola at 6:24 PM on January 2, 2002

to do something that might cause his utterly brain-dead parents to finally draw a line in the sand.

From what I've heard, they allowed him to attend a religious school, and from there he disappeared on his own. Where would people have had them draw the line? When their son decided he believed in Islam? (his right, in modern culture) Musical taste? (ridiculous) When he wanted to attend school abroad? (not exactly a red-flag) It's a cheap shot at liberals, and more often than not reveals religious and cultural prejudices in the accuser.
posted by skyline at 7:53 PM on January 2, 2002

skyline- you're misinterpreting my statement. I was simply saying this- Most parents upon hearing their son had joined the Taliban would say something like "I love my son, but this is wrong and he has to face the music"(that's putting it much more gently than my parents would.) Instead his parents reacted with "We'd like to give him a big hug." Huh? Simply nodding your head in approval and offering unconditional support to a child does not a good parent make. If that offends your tender sensibilities I'm sorry.

Now, as far as revealing "religious and cultural prejudices in the accuser," you don't know me so I'll let that cheap shot slide. But my Jewish girlfreind, Arab-American brother-in-law, Dominican boss and lesbian best freind and Peruvian other best freind might be inclined to disagree with you.
posted by jonmc at 8:05 PM on January 2, 2002

I wasn't addressing that to you, so it probably does sound like I misunderstood something you said. I quoted your post as just an example of people offhandedly calling the parents jackasses. No need to whip out the diverse buddy list.
posted by skyline at 8:29 PM on January 2, 2002

Being a skinhead in England had a different connotation than the Neo-Nazi Southern States version. Trojan Records, Oi Music, all that boot-boy stuff was very hip for a while. Braces and bleached jeans, bomber jackets. It was a big working-class thing. The style and music was quite cool. The racist element was the downfall, and after all it was just another scene. I like bits of scenes, but never the whole thing.

I had a few friends who were into the fashion of it here in California in the early 90s, but it was really a mix of scooter-boy stuff, mod stuff, etc etc. I personally looked like an outpatient when I had a shaved head, so I knew that particular fashion wasn't for me.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:26 PM on January 2, 2002

I should say at the roots of the movement in England, not now.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:41 PM on January 2, 2002

I've been out of the loop here for the last two weeks, so I have no idea whether anybody's posted this Dan Savage gem from The Stranger.

Don't like what he says? Homophobia indeed!
posted by crasspastor at 11:12 PM on January 2, 2002

There is, of course, for comparison, Ted Rall's fart, otherwise known as The Wonderful, Horrible Life of John Walker, which fails to actually be about the life of John Walker and is almost entirely about Rall's game of Twister to prove that the US was "supporting" the Taliban, so Walker was actually fighting for an allied power, so he's not guilty of anything. Rall assumes that only complicity in September 11 would be worthy of criminal charges -- short of that, he's just one crazy self-explorin' dude. There's the usual "there was no declaration of war" one-brain-cell bullshit -- there was, of course, a joint resolution under the War Powers act fully authorizing all military activity through an accepted democratic process. Rall actually lies about what's in the book he cites in order to prove his point -- it's incredibly appalling.
posted by dhartung at 11:21 PM on January 2, 2002

From the article -

"It’s not as if Frank Lindh has been running from the media spotlight either–at least that wasn’t the case initially. He was all over television, defending his son and trying to humanize him(...)"

"The moment Lindh went on television to defend his captured son he became a public figure. From a legal standpoint, he ceased to retain much privacy after that."

Gee, like Lindh ever had a choice any way down the line. To go on TV and try to put his side, make people realise that Walker was somebody's son, not a monster that suddenly spawned out of the ether who it was pointless to try and understand because evil is evil and not motivated by the same rules and conditions which "good" people ascribe to.

He had no choice, and thus, by the above reasoning, no choice other than to become a public figure.
posted by lucien at 3:14 AM on January 3, 2002

game of Twister to prove that the US was "supporting" the Taliban

i haven't been keeping up. the US didn't support the Taliban? when did this happen?
posted by tolkhan at 6:07 AM on January 3, 2002

But what makes me laugh just as hard as the fad-whores are the anti-fad whores, who hate whatever is hyped, whatever is popular, whatever is new, just because it is hyped, popular or new. And then call themselves 'alternative' - yea, right.

This is what I can't stand as well. The whole attitude of "all the rubes are doing it, so it must be bad. I and my beret-wearing compatriots will sit and look sullen whilst we latch onto a trend that no one else knows about so is automatically 'supercool'." Indie Rock Pete's, all of 'em.
posted by owillis at 6:42 AM on January 3, 2002

tolkhan, the US never supported the Taliban. We did not recognize the government, we did not give them any money, most of their weapons were recycled or came from China via Pakistan. That infamous $43 million story is a myth, no matter how many times it appears in the alternative press; and in case you missed it, the Taliban did not even exist during the time we were supporting the mujahedin against the Soviets, and most of the mujahedin we did support ended up retired in Pakistan or in the Northern Alliance. Yet all of these facts are turned on their heads in a continued lame campaign to persuade people that we supported the Taliban ergo we, the American people, are ultimately more responsible for September 11 than them who actually done the thing. Please keep the hell up, and read more critically.
posted by dhartung at 8:49 AM on January 3, 2002

dhartung: i was asking a legitimate question, not being snarky.
posted by tolkhan at 9:31 AM on January 3, 2002

Did you know?

It's quite possible to hate white racism without hating yourself!

posted by sudama at 9:48 AM on January 3, 2002

Yet all of these facts are turned on their heads in a continued lame campaign to persuade people that we supported the Taliban ergo we, the American people, are ultimately more responsible for September 11 than them who actually done the thing.

Are you talking blowback, or what?
posted by retrofut at 12:48 AM on January 4, 2002

Maybe he was just looking for a philosphy, a religion, whatever, got in over his head, and got involved with the wrong people. Sounds like many religious nuts, he went overboard once he found the philosophy that made sense to him. Too bad for him, now he's got to face the consequences. People all over the world become religious for various reasons every day-- trying to ascribe it to one reason or another is pretty foolish and mostly unrelated to Walker's current situation.
posted by chaz at 2:04 AM on January 4, 2002