Imperial Entanglements: Afghan Refugees and the Reimagining of Midwestern Identity in Muncie, Indiana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting and insightful paper.  I found the juxtaposition of the original Muncie/Middletown study with later research on Muncie and now this study of resettlement in Muncie intriguing and instructive. The fact that the author was there at the outset of the Afghan resettlement to Muncie makes them a uniquely positioned observer and analyst. The piece is well written – accessible and organized. The analysis of the documentary Stranger at the Gates and the author’s own fieldwork worked to support the article’s claims – that “zones of contact illicit a wide variety of relations of power, difference, discrimination, and collaboration.” The paper offered a nuanced understanding of resettlement and its relationship to US empire.

In terms of revision, I have only one major comment, along with a question that may or may not need to be addressed, but I wanted to pose it:

• The main argument – as stated in the abstract – is that “studying refugee resettlement in Muncie may demonstrate patterns that are applicable to other locales in ways similar to and different from the ways that Robert Lynd and Helen Lynd…attempted to portray the ‘average’ American one hundred years ago.”

I think the connection to the Middletown studies is totally interesting, and should be highlighted in the paper, but this seems like an overly general statement that doesn’t tell us as much about the material presented in the paper as it could. I’m wondering if you can develop the main argument to be more specific and directed to conclusions about empire and ideas about the Midwest – which come through strongly in the article. I wonder if some of the ideas presented in the final paragraph of the penultimate section (page 11 in the document I have, specifically lines 514 to 522) might be further developed and foregrounded earlier on. I think these points about disconnect between local and national politics around immigration will be of interest to many. How does that tie into your conclusions about what empire looks like in a place like Muncie? If that’s not “main argument” material, could you in some other way develop the ideas about how empire emerges in Muncie (and similar places) to make the main argument stronger and more specific? For e.g., what does this study contribute to previous studies of US empire or resettlement or immigration? How might that connect to the history of the Middletown studies? Could you come back to the question of what "average" American means (posed in line 95), and attempt to answer that question? Would engaging more with the Lutz et al work help us at all in answering that? 

• My question is about the absence of voices of people in Muncie, either volunteers or newly-arrived Afghans. The description of how resettlement in Muncie unfolded is great- very specific and clear. When I got to the end of the article, I wondered why we hadn’t heard from the people involved (other than the author, who of course also figures as a participant). Were interviews conducted? Perhaps it would be useful to include a sentence or two about if and how this article fits into a larger research project. I am not at all sure that adding people’s voices is necessary for this article, but I wanted to pose the question in case it is useful.

 

Small notes:

• The abstract uses the number 80,000 Afghan refugees since 2021 but line 26 says 117,000 (maybe I’ve missed the distinction between what the two numbers are referring to?)
• Line 322 – I’m unsure of the meaning of “mechanism of control” here – could this be revised or elaborated?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting and insightful paper.  I found the juxtaposition of the original Muncie/Middletown study with later research on Muncie and now this study of resettlement in Muncie intriguing and instructive. The fact that the author was there at the outset of the Afghan resettlement to Muncie makes them a uniquely positioned observer and analyst. The piece is well written – accessible and organized. The analysis of the documentary Stranger at the Gates and the author’s own fieldwork worked to support the article’s claims – that “zones of contact illicit a wide variety of relations of power, difference, discrimination, and collaboration.” The paper offered a nuanced understanding of resettlement and its relationship to US empire.           

In terms of revision, I have only one major comment, along with a question that may or may not need to be addressed, but I wanted to pose it:

• The main argument – as stated in the abstract – is that “studying refugee resettlement in Muncie may demonstrate patterns that are applicable to other locales in ways similar to and different from the ways that Robert Lynd and Helen Lynd…attempted to portray the ‘average’ American one hundred years ago.”

 

I think the connection to the Middletown studies is totally interesting, and should be highlighted in the paper, but this seems like an overly general statement that doesn’t tell us as much about the material presented in the paper as it could. I’m wondering if you can develop the main argument to be more specific and directed to conclusions about empire and ideas about the Midwest – which come through strongly in the article. I wonder if some of the ideas presented in the final paragraph of the penultimate section (page 11 in the document I have, specifically lines 514 to 522) might be further developed and foregrounded earlier on. I think these points about disconnect between local and national politics around immigration will be of interest to many. How does that tie into your conclusions about what empire looks like in a place like Muncie? If that’s not “main argument” material, could you in some other way develop the ideas about how empire emerges in Muncie (and similar places) to make the main argument stronger and more specific? For e.g., what does this study contribute to previous studies of US empire or resettlement or immigration? How might that connect to the history of the Middletown studies? Could you come back to the question of what "average" American means (posed in line 95), and attempt to answer that question? Would engaging more with the Lutz et al work help us at all in answering that? 

Thank you for the suggestion for how to make the paper stronger. I revised the main argument, introduction, and conclusion, and added more analysis from othe authors of empire (Mamdani and Kumar), which can be found at the end of the introduction and revisited in the conclusion as well as Section 4.

• My question is about the absence of voices of people in Muncie, either volunteers or newly-arrived Afghans. The description of how resettlement in Muncie unfolded is great- very specific and clear. When I got to the end of the article, I wondered why we hadn’t heard from the people involved (other than the author, who of course also figures as a participant). Were interviews conducted? Perhaps it would be useful to include a sentence or two about if and how this article fits into a larger research project. I am not at all sure that adding people’s voices is necessary for this article, but I wanted to pose the question in case it is useful.
• I added a methods section (section 2) to explain why interview data was not included in the paper.

Small notes:

• The abstract uses the number 80,000 Afghan refugees since 2021 but line 26 says 117,000 (maybe I’ve missed the distinction between what the two numbers are referring to?)
• Line 322 – I’m unsure of the meaning of “mechanism of control” here – could this be revised or elaborated?
• I fixed both of these. Thank you.

Reviewer 2

Overall, this manuscript is nearly publishable. A few minor revision points are recommended, along with some suggestions that could further strengthen the analysis and conclusion.

The article presents a dilemma between academic and political approaches to Middletown/Muncie, which often ignore, marginalize, or even erase non-Protestant and non-white individuals, and the contemporary incorporation of Afghan refugees following the chaotic American exit from Afghanistan. This is a compelling and relevant dilemma, but the author could explore and articulate it more fully. There is material, analysis, and reflection in the chapter that support a stronger aim, argument and conclusion. This is an encouragement more than a requirement.

I believe that my argument is stronger now. Please see the revised introduction and conclusion. “Examining refugee resettlement at the local level can help elucidate how dominant cultural narratives and ideologies are carried out and practiced, including the ways in which refugee resettlement links the Midwest region to race, nation, and empire.”

Lines 271-274: Here, using Lutz, the author more clearly conveys what author are writing “against.” Could this, in some form, be moved closer to the beginning? Rather than highlighting the practice of “writing against,”

I tried to explain better the importance of local level relationships in Muncie. I hope this comes through in the revised paper.

“Challenge the narratives”—isn’t there much more to it than that? The existence of these dominant narratives is a fact, both historical and contemporary, and they are in dire need of being addressed directly. Showing that reality on the ground differs from the narratives is important, but to put it bluntly: to what extent does that matter? Or does it change the narratives? The author is encouraged to discuss (briefly) the difference between “narratives” and ideologies, especially nativism—which encompasses both nationalism and racism, including the racialization of Catholics. Dismantling ideologies, with a historical dimension, would engage the author more directly in creating change. The questions readers need answered are: How and why are these narratives and ideologies promoted? What explanations can we provide? Why does scholarship fail to mention minorities?

These are helpful suggestions. I revised the main argument to center the resettlement of Afghan refugees to Muncie in 2021 as part of a longer history of racialization, imperialism, and migration in order to explain how cultural narratives and ideologies about race, nation, and empire come to have the power they do.

A clearer and more ambitious aim for the article would also enable a more traditional conclusion.

I believe that my revised introduction (especially towards the end) and the conclusion are now clearer.

“Using cultural critique, I first provide a critical overview of Middletown scholarship to summarize dominant narratives of the Midwest…” Fine.

“Next, I explain how the Oscar-nominated short documentary film, ‘Stranger at the Gate’ (Seftel 2022), turns the image of the average Munsonian and the refugee on their heads.” I suggest reversing this order. To avoid giving the impression that analyzing the documentary is the goal, state your main argument first, and then use the (excellent) documentary as a means to that end—not as an end in itself.

I appreciate this suggestion, but I think the article transitions better from the film to Afghans in Muncie after 2021. I hope the reviewer will find that a stronger aim and argument, laid out at the beginning of the paper, will address this suggestion as well.

The film tells the story of how the Muslim community in Muncie welcomed Richard “Mac” McKinney, a white 25-year veteran of the Marines with PTSD and a would-be bomber of the Muncie Islamic Center, thereby averting hundreds of deaths and leading to Mac’s conversion to Islam.

“Mac, you’re on the range. You’re shooting at a paper target. As long as you can look at them as anything but human, you won’t have any problems.” This is a powerful statement, but its implications remain underanalyzed.

Agreed – I analyzed this more in the paper now.

For example: “Mac became so angry at seeing women in hijab at the local Walmart that she would steer him to other aisles to avoid them.” To what extent can this be related to Mac’s experiences and trauma from Afghanistan? Furthermore, how much is it a manifestation of entrenched “White Rage” and a continual state of alertness—when simply seeing, or perhaps just thinking about, a Muslim presence -- triggers a reaction? This is reminiscent of the anger directed toward the presence of African-American bodies, especially those experiencing upward social mobility as captured by Carol Anderson in “White Rage”.

Great suggestion. Thank you for the recommendation. I have added this source to the paper.

Scholars in Bloomington have told me that much of rural Indiana consists of some of the most racist areas in the country, with roots partially in ultra-conservative peasant migrants of German descent. That certainly helps fuel White Rage.

Mac—a white soldier—is depicted as the person in need of saving, and his saviors are Muslims and people of color. This could be made clearer in the text. The analysis is not wrong, but a sentence or two could be added to discuss how the media spins the narrative to avoid framing it as simply a clash between “us” and Muslims. For example, there is often an emphasis on the need to save Muslim women from Muslim men. This trope was originally explored in a study from India (see Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 2021). See also Evelyn Alsultany’s “Arabs and Muslims in the Media”, and Mahmood Mamdani “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim”. Instead of relying solely on explicit racism, these scholars found that media and political discourse operate with a soft positive side to the discourse, but still ended with the strong, negative, and even violent “bad” other Muslim. “Good Muslims” being those who agree with “US.”

These are helpful suggestions and have made the paper stronger. I love Mamdani’s work and it’s too bad I didn’t include him in the first version of the paper. Kumar’s work, too, is fitting for this article and both have been added to my analysis, especially in Section 4.

Malala Yousafzai is mentioned but would benefit from a bit more explanation—one or two additional sentences would help. Done

Since the author aims to address the simplified stories of binaries of White-Protestant versus non-White, non-Protestant groups, they should in the same logic be careful to avoid turning “Afghan refugees” into an almost monolithic category. We all know how diverse and complicated the situation in Afghanistan is.

Pashto-speaking refugees are mentioned but not set in context. What languages and groups do the Afghan refugees in Muncie speak? Brief but important contextual information should be included here. In the concluding thoughts, the author argues that there are similarities between the “average” American’s relationship to non-White, non-Protestant groups and the present situation, but stops short after only mentioning patterns. I agree that there are certain similarities, but the author needs to clearly outline what they are.

I have provided this information in the new methods and background section as well as Section 5.

Regarding the "Great Replacement Theory" (GRT):

Since the journal has an international audience, the author is encouraged to elaborate further. GRT has both European and American versions. The European version is closely associated with the "Eurabia" conspiracy theory, which is widespread and centers on the belief in a Muslim takeover. It is also linked to nationalism and the ideal of racial purity within the nation-state.

Thank you for pointing this out. I explained the GRT better and put at the end of the last section rather than in conclusion. I’m curious if reviewers agree that it fits better where it is now, or whether I should just cut that paragraph altogether?

Clarification needed:

The phrase "dangerous conditions overseas" may confuse international readers, as the perspective from which "overseas" is referenced is unclear. Blurred also by the fact that Afghanistan is landlocked and has no access to the sea, so it is important to specify what is meant by "overseas" in this context.

Agreed. This was misleading and I fixed it. Thanks.

 

Reviewer 3

I would like to thank the authors for the amendments they made. The article is succinctly described and deeply contextualized. It could be one of the few longitudinal media studies on Afghan refugee resettlement. But I would like to highlight some needed improvements and amendments on the following points. Some sections, mainly the descriptive narratives of film and committee logistics, could be improved by being more focused and having more readability.

1. Pages 5–7 (Sections 3: Stranger at the Gate)

“Mac explains that in high school he became involved with drugs and got into trouble.... ‘The target started bleeding... that’s when I really felt things were about to change.”

This extended film summary (nearly two pages) is powerful and supports the argument, but it is overly detailed for an article. A more accurate summary of the key narrative arc would do, allowing space to foreground the analytical insights—particularly about soldiers, whiteness, and the imperial gaze.

I added a paragraph about Islamophobia and whiteness to the film analysis. Pg. 8

1. Pages 9–11 (Section 4: Refugee Resettlement as Imperial Inheritance in Muncie) Example:

“Volunteers came from a variety of backgrounds, from young stay-at-home mothers to retirees… When a new family with children, major health problems, and little English or formal education arrived... I accepted the request.”

The details of MARRC are insightful but long. These could be summarized and framed more analytically to emphasize themes like “volunteer precarity,” “racialized expectations of refugees,” or “grassroots infrastructure gaps” rather than recounting all logistics. Done (Section 5 revised) thanks

1. Add an obvious methodological explanation (near the introduction) to elaborate on the author’s dual role as participant-observer and critical theorist. Done, please see Section 2
2. Use clear transitions between personal and theoretical sections. Throughout the paper, especially in Sections 3 and 4, use flagging to move between modes of analysis. Reframe anecdotes as supporting the theory, not driving it. Done, I think.
3. I added a Methodology and Background section that addresses these points: see pages 3-4

There’s no stated methodological orientation in the moments:

Page 1: “my experiences working with the Muncie Afghan Refugee Resettlement Committee…”

Page 10: “I accepted the request [to be a sponsor] … my days were filled with medical appointments…”

How the author recognized these experiences (e.g., personal observation, field notes, informal interviews).

What forms of data collection, consent, or ethical considerations were used?

The scope or limits of the claims being made from personal experience.

6. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: The author includes firsthand experiences and participatory involvement in the Muncie Afghan Refugee Resettlement Committee (MARRC). While this lends reliability and credibility, it also raises the possibility of positional bias.

I put this in the methods section, but can revise again if necessary.

7. Scope and limitations: this is a case study, and the findings are not generalizable. Understood
8. Incorporating research on the media portrayal of Middle Eastern refugee women to expand the international context alongside references to Australian, German, or British media and considering references such as “Xenophobia and Hate Speech towards Refugees on Social Media: Reinforcing Causes, Negative Effects, Defense and Response Mechanisms against That Speech” in Section 5, concluding thoughts (pp. 11–12). The article would strengthen the final argument about the contradictory public discourses around refugees and the rising tensions between local welcome and national-level xenophobia.

Thank you for this suggestion, and I’m sure that I’m missing other relevant sources, but I feel the paper has enough sources now.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Review of Afghan Refugees in Muncie, Indiana

 

Overall, this manuscript is nearly publishable. A few minor revision points are recommended, along with some suggestions that could further strengthen the analysis and conclusion.

The article presents a dilemma between academic and political approaches to Middletown/Muncie, which often ignore, marginalize, or even erase non-Protestant and non-white individuals, and the contemporary incorporation of Afghan refugees following the chaotic American exit from Afghanistan. This is a compelling and relevant dilemma, but the author could explore and articulate it more fully. There is material, analysis, and reflection in the chapter that support a stronger aim, argument and conclusion. This is an encouragement more than a requirement.

Lines 271-274: Here, using Lutz, the author more clearly conveys what author are writing “against.” Could this, in some form, be moved closer to the beginning?

“Challenge the narratives”—isn’t there much more to it than that? The existence of these dominant narratives is a fact, both historical and contemporary, and they are in dire need of being addressed directly. Showing that reality on the ground differs from the narratives is important, but to put it bluntly: to what extent does that matter? Or does it change the narratives? The author is encouraged to discuss (briefly) the difference between “narratives” and ideologies, especially nativism—which encompasses both nationalism and racism, including the racialization of Catholics. Dismantling ideologies, with a historical dimension, would engage the author more directly in creating change. The questions readers need answered are: How and why are these narratives and ideologies promoted? What explanations can we provide? Why does scholarship fail to mention minorities?

A clearer and more ambitious aim for the article would also enable a more traditional conclusion.

“Using cultural critique, I first provide a critical overview of Middletown scholarship to summarize dominant narratives of the Midwest…” Fine.

“Next, I explain how the Oscar-nominated short documentary film, ‘Stranger at the Gate’ (Seftel 2022), turns the image of the average Munsonian and the refugee on their heads.” I suggest reversing this order. To avoid giving the impression that analyzing the documentary is the goal, state your main argument first, and then use the (excellent) documentary as a means to that end—not as an end in itself.

The film tells the story of how the Muslim community in Muncie welcomed Richard “Mac” McKinney, a white 25-year veteran of the Marines with PTSD and a would-be bomber of the Muncie Islamic Center, thereby averting hundreds of deaths and leading to Mac’s conversion to Islam.

 

 

“Mac, you’re on the range. You’re shooting at a paper target. As long as you can look at them as anything but human, you won’t have any problems.” This is a powerful statement, but its implications remain underanalyzed.

For example: “Mac became so angry at seeing women in hijab at the local Walmart that she would steer him to other aisles to avoid them.” To what extent can this be related to Mac’s experiences and trauma from Afghanistan? Furthermore, how much is it a manifestation of entrenched “White Rage” and a continual state of alertness—when simply seeing, or perhaps just thinking about, a Muslim presence -- triggers a reaction? This is reminiscent of the anger directed toward the presence of African-American bodies, especially those experiencing upward social mobility as captured by Carol Anderson in “White Rage”.

Scholars in Bloomington have told me that much of rural Indiana consists of some of the most racist areas in the country, with roots partially in ultra-conservative peasant migrants of German descent. That certainly helps fuel White Rage.

Mac—a white soldier—is depicted as the person in need of saving, and his saviors are Muslims and people of color. This could be made clearer in the text. The analysis is not wrong, but a sentence or two could be added to discuss how the media spins the narrative to avoid framing it as simply a clash between “us” and Muslims. For example, there is often an emphasis on the need to save Muslim women from Muslim men. This trope was originally explored in a study from India (see Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 2021). See also Evelyn Alsultany’s “Arabs and Muslims in the Media”, and Mahmood Mamdani “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim”. Instead of relying solely on explicit racism, these scholars found that media and political discourse operate with a soft positive side to the discourse, but still ended with the strong, negative, and even violent “bad” other Muslim. “Good Muslims” being those who agree with “US.”

Malala Yousafzai is mentioned but would benefit from a bit more explanation—one or two additional sentences would help.

Since the author aims to address the simplified stories of binaries of White-Protestant versus non-White, non-Protestant groups, they should in the same logic be careful to avoid turning “Afghan refugees” into an almost monolithic category. We all know how diverse and complicated the situation in Afghanistan is.

Pashto-speaking refugees are mentioned but not set in context. What languages and groups do the Afghan refugees in Muncie speak? Brief but important contextual information should be included here.In the concluding thoughts, the author argues that there are similarities between the “average” American’s relationship to non-White, non-Protestant groups and the present situation, but stops short after only mentioning patterns. I agree that there are certain similarities, but the author needs to clearly outline what they are.

 

Regarding the "Great Replacement Theory" (GRT):

Since the journal has an international audience, the author is encouraged to elaborate further. GRT has both European and American versions. The European version is closely associated with the "Eurabia" conspiracy theory, which is widespread and centers on the belief in a Muslim takeover. It is also linked to nationalism and the ideal of racial purity within the nation-state.

Clarification needed:

The phrase "dangerous conditions overseas" may confuse international readers, as the perspective from which "overseas" is referenced is unclear. Blurred also by the fact that Afghanistan is landlocked and has no access to the sea, so it is important to specify what is meant by "overseas" in this context.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Overall, this manuscript is nearly publishable. A few minor revision points are recommended, along with some suggestions that could further strengthen the analysis and conclusion.

 

The article presents a dilemma between academic and political approaches to Middletown/Muncie, which often ignore, marginalize, or even erase non-Protestant and non-white individuals, and the contemporary incorporation of Afghan refugees following the chaotic American exit from Afghanistan. This is a compelling and relevant dilemma, but the author could explore and articulate it more fully. There is material, analysis, and reflection in the chapter that support a stronger aim, argument and conclusion. This is an encouragement more than a requirement.

I believe that my argument is stronger now. Please see the revised introduction and conclusion. “Examining refugee resettlement at the local level can help elucidate how dominant cultural narratives and ideologies are carried out and practiced, including the ways in which refugee resettlement links the Midwest region to race, nation, and empire.”

 

Lines 271-274: Here, using Lutz, the author more clearly conveys what author are writing “against.” Could this, in some form, be moved closer to the beginning? Rather than highlighting the practice of “writing against,” I tried to explain better the importance of local level relationships in Muncie. I hope this comes through in the revised paper.

 

“Challenge the narratives”—isn’t there much more to it than that? The existence of these dominant narratives is a fact, both historical and contemporary, and they are in dire need of being addressed directly. Showing that reality on the ground differs from the narratives is important, but to put it bluntly: to what extent does that matter? Or does it change the narratives? The author is encouraged to discuss (briefly) the difference between “narratives” and ideologies, especially nativism—which encompasses both nationalism and racism, including the racialization of Catholics. Dismantling ideologies, with a historical dimension, would engage the author more directly in creating change. The questions readers need answered are: How and why are these narratives and ideologies promoted? What explanations can we provide? Why does scholarship fail to mention minorities?

These are helpful suggestions. I revised the main argument to center the resettlement of Afghan refugees to Muncie in 2021 as part of a longer history of racialization, imperialism, and migration in order to explain how cultural narratives and ideologies about race, nation, and empire come to have the power they do..

 

A clearer and more ambitious aim for the article would also enable a more traditional conclusion.

I believe that my revised introduction (especially towards the end) and the conclusion are now clearer.

 

“Using cultural critique, I first provide a critical overview of Middletown scholarship to summarize dominant narratives of the Midwest…” Fine.

 

“Next, I explain how the Oscar-nominated short documentary film, ‘Stranger at the Gate’ (Seftel 2022), turns the image of the average Munsonian and the refugee on their heads.” I suggest reversing this order. To avoid giving the impression that analyzing the documentary is the goal, state your main argument first, and then use the (excellent) documentary as a means to that end—not as an end in itself.

I appreciate this suggestion, but I think the article transitions better from the film to Afghans in Muncie after 2021. I hope the reviewer will find that a stronger aim and argument, laid out at the beginning of the paper, will address this suggestion as well.

 

The film tells the story of how the Muslim community in Muncie welcomed Richard “Mac” McKinney, a white 25-year veteran of the Marines with PTSD and a would-be bomber of the Muncie Islamic Center, thereby averting hundreds of deaths and leading to Mac’s conversion to Islam.

 

“Mac, you’re on the range. You’re shooting at a paper target. As long as you can look at them as anything but human, you won’t have any problems.” This is a powerful statement, but its implications remain underanalyzed. Agreed – I analyzed this more in the paper now.

 

For example: “Mac became so angry at seeing women in hijab at the local Walmart that she would steer him to other aisles to avoid them.” To what extent can this be related to Mac’s experiences and trauma from Afghanistan? Furthermore, how much is it a manifestation of entrenched “White Rage” and a continual state of alertness—when simply seeing, or perhaps just thinking about, a Muslim presence -- triggers a reaction? This is reminiscent of the anger directed toward the presence of African-American bodies, especially those experiencing upward social mobility as captured by Carol Anderson in “White Rage”.

Great suggestion. Thank you for the recommendation. I have added this source to the paper.

 

Scholars in Bloomington have told me that much of rural Indiana consists of some of the most racist areas in the country, with roots partially in ultra-conservative peasant migrants of German descent. That certainly helps fuel White Rage.

 

Mac—a white soldier—is depicted as the person in need of saving, and his saviors are Muslims and people of color. This could be made clearer in the text. The analysis is not wrong, but a sentence or two could be added to discuss how the media spins the narrative to avoid framing it as simply a clash between “us” and Muslims. For example, there is often an emphasis on the need to save Muslim women from Muslim men. This trope was originally explored in a study from India (see Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 2021). See also Evelyn Alsultany’s “Arabs and Muslims in the Media”, and Mahmood Mamdani “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim”. Instead of relying solely on explicit racism, these scholars found that media and political discourse operate with a soft positive side to the discourse, but still ended with the strong, negative, and even violent “bad” other Muslim. “Good Muslims” being those who agree with “US.”

These are helpful suggestions and have made the paper stronger. I love Mamdani’s work and it’s too bad I didn’t include him in the first version of the paper. Kumar’s work, too, is fitting for this article and both have been added to my analysis, especially in Section 4.

 

Malala Yousafzai is mentioned but would benefit from a bit more explanation—one or two additional sentences would help. Done

 

Since the author aims to address the simplified stories of binaries of White-Protestant versus non-White, non-Protestant groups, they should in the same logic be careful to avoid turning “Afghan refugees” into an almost monolithic category. We all know how diverse and complicated the situation in Afghanistan is.

Pashto-speaking refugees are mentioned but not set in context. What languages and groups do the Afghan refugees in Muncie speak? Brief but important contextual information should be included here. In the concluding thoughts, the author argues that there are similarities between the “average” American’s relationship to non-White, non-Protestant groups and the present situation, but stops short after only mentioning patterns. I agree that there are certain similarities, but the author needs to clearly outline what they are.

I have provided this information in the new methods and background section.

 

Regarding the "Great Replacement Theory" (GRT):

Since the journal has an international audience, the author is encouraged to elaborate further. GRT has both European and American versions. The European version is closely associated with the "Eurabia" conspiracy theory, which is widespread and centers on the belief in a Muslim takeover. It is also linked to nationalism and the ideal of racial purity within the nation-state.

Thank you for pointing this out. I explained the GRT better and put at the end of the last section rather than in conclusion. I’m curious if reviewers agree that it fits better where it is now, or whether I should just cut that paragraph altogether?

 

Clarification needed:

The phrase "dangerous conditions overseas" may confuse international readers, as the perspective from which "overseas" is referenced is unclear. Blurred also by the fact that Afghanistan is landlocked and has no access to the sea, so it is important to specify what is meant by "overseas" in this context.

Agreed. This was misleading and I fixed it. Thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the amendments they made. The article is succinctly described and deeply contextualized.

It could be one of the few longitudinal media studies on Afghan refugee resettlement. But I would like to highlight some needed improvements and amendments on the following points.

- Some sections, mainly the descriptive narratives of film and committee logistics, could be improved by being more focused and having more readability.

1. Pages 5–7 (Sections 3: Stranger at the Gate: Turning the Discourse of Refugees and Soldiers on Their Head)

Example:

“Mac explains that in high school he became involved with drugs and got into trouble. To get out of trouble and earn his father’s respect, he joined the Marines... ‘The target started bleeding... that’s when I really felt things were about to change.”

This extended film summary (nearly two pages) is powerful and supports the argument, but it is overly detailed for an article. A more accurate summary of the key narrative arc would do, allowing space to foreground the analytical insights—particularly about soldiers, whiteness, and the imperial gaze.

2. Pages 9–11 (Section 4: Refugee Resettlement as Imperial Inheritance in Muncie)

Example:

“Volunteers came from a variety of backgrounds, from young stay-at-home mothers to retirees… When a new family with children, major health problems, and little English or formal education arrived... I accepted the request.”

The details of MARRC are insightful but long. These could be summarized and framed more analytically to emphasize themes like “volunteer precarity,” “racialized expectations of refugees,” or “grassroots infrastructure gaps” rather than recounting all logistics.

3. Add an obvious methodological explanation (near the introduction) to elaborate on the author’s dual role as participant-observer and critical theorist.
4. Use clear transitions between personal and theoretical sections. Throughout the paper, especially in Sections 3 and 4, use flagging to move between modes of analysis. Reframe anecdotes as supporting the theory, not driving it.
5. Methodology:

There’s no stated methodological orientation in the moments:

Page 1: “my experiences working with the Muncie Afghan Refugee Resettlement Committee…”

Page 10: “I accepted the request [to be a sponsor] … my days were filled with medical appointments…”

How the author recognized these experiences (e.g., personal observation, field notes, informal interviews).

What forms of data collection, consent, or ethical considerations were used?

The scope or limits of the claims being made from personal experience.

6. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: The author includes firsthand experiences and participatory involvement in the Muncie Afghan Refugee Resettlement Committee (MARRC). While this lends reliability and credibility, it also raises the possibility of positional bias.

7. Scope and limitations: this is a case study, and the findings are not generalizable.

 

8. Incorporating research on the media portrayal of Middle Eastern refugee women to expand the international context alongside references to Australian, German, or British media and considering references such as “Xenophobia and Hate Speech towards Refugees on Social Media: Reinforcing Causes, Negative Effects, Defense and Response Mechanisms against That Speech” in Section 5, concluding thoughts (pp. 11–12). The article would strengthen the final argument about the contradictory public discourses around refugees and the rising tensions between local welcome and national-level xenophobia.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

I would like to thank the authors for the amendments they made. The article is succinctly described and deeply contextualized. It could be one of the few longitudinal media studies on Afghan refugee resettlement. But I would like to highlight some needed improvements and amendments on the following points. Some sections, mainly the descriptive narratives of film and committee logistics, could be improved by being more focused and having more readability.

 

1. Pages 5–7 (Sections 3: Stranger at the Gate)

“Mac explains that in high school he became involved with drugs and got into trouble.... ‘The target started bleeding... that’s when I really felt things were about to change.”

This extended film summary (nearly two pages) is powerful and supports the argument, but it is overly detailed for an article. A more accurate summary of the key narrative arc would do, allowing space to foreground the analytical insights—particularly about soldiers, whiteness, and the imperial gaze.

I added a paragraph about Islamophobia, whiteness, and the imperial gaze to the film analysis. Pg. 8

 

1. Pages 9–11 (Section 4: Refugee Resettlement as Imperial Inheritance in Muncie) Example:

“Volunteers came from a variety of backgrounds, from young stay-at-home mothers to retirees… When a new family with children, major health problems, and little English or formal education arrived... I accepted the request.”

The details of MARRC are insightful but long. These could be summarized and framed more analytically to emphasize themes like “volunteer precarity,” “racialized expectations of refugees,” or “grassroots infrastructure gaps” rather than recounting all logistics.

1. Add an obvious methodological explanation (near the introduction) to elaborate on the author’s dual role as participant-observer and critical theorist. Done, please see Section 2
2. Use clear transitions between personal and theoretical sections. Throughout the paper, especially in Sections 3 and 4, use flagging to move between modes of analysis. Reframe anecdotes as supporting the theory, not driving it. Done, I think.
3. Methodology: see page 3-4

There’s no stated methodological orientation in the moments:

Page 1: “my experiences working with the Muncie Afghan Refugee Resettlement Committee…”

Page 10: “I accepted the request [to be a sponsor] … my days were filled with medical appointments…”

How the author recognized these experiences (e.g., personal observation, field notes, informal interviews).

What forms of data collection, consent, or ethical considerations were used?

The scope or limits of the claims being made from personal experience.

 

6. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: The author includes firsthand experiences and participatory involvement in the Muncie Afghan Refugee Resettlement Committee (MARRC). While this lends reliability and credibility, it also raises the possibility of positional bias.

I put this in the methods section, but can revise again if necessary.

 

7. Scope and limitations: this is a case study, and the findings are not generalizable. Understood

 

8. Incorporating research on the media portrayal of Middle Eastern refugee women to expand the international context alongside references to Australian, German, or British media and considering references such as “Xenophobia and Hate Speech towards Refugees on Social Media: Reinforcing Causes, Negative Effects, Defense and Response Mechanisms against That Speech” in Section 5, concluding thoughts (pp. 11–12). The article would strengthen the final argument about the contradictory public discourses around refugees and the rising tensions between local welcome and national-level xenophobia.

 

Thank you for this suggestion, and I’m sure that I’m missing other relevant sources, but I feel the paper has enough sources now.