Faulty Analogies Abound

To the editors:

I am not exactly sure what to make of Charles D. Cheever’s piece, “Native Americans and Native Palestinians” (Op-Ed, Oct. 15). Or rather, I should say that I am not sure what I found more disturbing, his gross oversimplifications or his faulty analogies.

Cheever’s thesis seems to be that the status of Arabs is analogous to that of the Native Americans. Or did Cheever mean Palestinian Arabs? He seems unable to choose. Cheever’s reasons for this comparison are threefold: both groups were “displaced” by some other power; both groups are stereotyped in movies; and both groups represent discrete, disjointed factions which cannot accurately be classified together.

A quick examination of these points reveals their inherent logical flaws. While Cheever is aware that both Native Americans and some Palestinians were displaced from their homes, he seems oblivious to the historical context of their displacement. He claims that Israel was created “as a safe haven after the atrocities of World War II.” While this may be true, the entire concept of Zionism—dating back long before the Second World War—is based on the concept that the Jewish people have a right to live in their historic homeland. When Europeans came to America, they were exercising no such right, and held none of the historical, religious or cultural claims that the Jewish people hold to the land of Israel. Cheever’s analogy is thus faulty.

Cheever’s second claim is fallacious as well. Arabs and Native Americans are by no means the only two groups to be unfairly stereotyped in the media. Using this distinction to make a claim about the cultural and historical identity of two ethnic groups is simply bizarre. Many groups have suffered unfair portrayal in the American media. Would Cheever use the same argument to draw a connection between Arabs and Hispanics—or between Arabs and Jews, for that matter?

Finally, Cheever claims that “Native Americans were divided into hundreds of tribes. Between many of those there were disputes; many others were ignorant of each other’s existence.” He then attempts to liken this situation to that of modern-day Arabs. Cheever is apparently unaware of the concept of Pan-Arabism, which, along with Islamism, ranks as one of the strongest political trends in the Arab world today. Indeed, the religious, cultural, and ethnic diversity among Native American peoples stands in stark contrast to the religious, cultural, and ethnic uniformity of the Arab world. Here, Cheever seems to be arguing a point that is simply false.