In another class that I'm taking we were discussing the recent McCain/Palin rally up at Stabler and one of the students mentioned that a prominent figure in the Republican party had been continually referring to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama". In our subsequent discussion we talked about what it means that this kind of a tactic is used in order to somehow discredit or damamge the opposition. This is by no means an attack on McCain or the Republican Party but I would like to explore the mentality behind this and its consequences.
Clearly referring to the middle name "Hussein" is a direct referrence to Saddam Hussein and the Middle East in general. Considering that much of the election is focused on the Iraq War, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it's pertinant to ask whether or not this reference is simply a misguided fear tactic or if it is indicative of an inherent ethnocentricity on behalf of both the nation and the Republican party member. It also begs the question of what is acceptable and "politically correct" in terms of political strategy. Keep in mind that the name Hussein is a mark of the Islamic religion and not necessary of Middle Eastern ethnicity. If Obama had a distinctly African middle name, or a distinctly European middle name, would it ever be used as a way to create negativity around his candidacy?I would assume not. It is not "ok" to be racist against African decendency and we would never dream of degrading a European name as we would risk degrading many of our own ancestors as Euro-Americans. But for some reason, we are permitted to use a religious name ( that calls to mind the horrors in Iraq ) in this manner.
What does this say about us a nation that we still have people who are willing to refer to a specific area of the world in order to create a feeling of fear or inadequacy? What does it mean for those Muslim Americans living in the US who have to deal everyday with the fact that their religion is used as a scapegoat in politics? In this way, the Republican member who used this tactic is (and perhaps subconsciously) creating a "unity" through exclusion and alienation of "others". These "others" do not just include terrorists, although this is clearly the implication in that it connects "Barack Hussein" with terrorism, they include Iraqi's suffering in the midst of national destruction, it includes Muslims in all over the world, and it includes Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States. And even if the intention here was not to victimize a certain group, that is the result. If you should question whether or not this is the case consider the rally that took place yesterday and ask yourself how comfortable you would have been attending that rally with a turban or a veil on. Consider the fact that there is a professor here at Lehigh who was interested in attending but revealed to his students that he did not think he would be let in. This kind of exclusion isn't abstract, it happens everyday and everywhere. I think what I'm trying to convey here is that politics can take a nasty turn sometimes and we need to ask ourselves why we allow it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think you raise some great questions in your post especially about the almost accepted racism against Muslims. I work at a restaurant, and every Wednesday is quiz night. Each team has to pick a name, and as they were being announced one name struck me: Obama's Osama. This is not the first time i have heard this comparison. The fact that people are comparing Obama to Osama bin Laden for the mere fact that their names rhyme is deplorable (not to mention a horrible argument). However, as we learned in class a large portion of the audience processes information peripherally, and this is the demographic who will take these associations to heart. I almost expect this kind of behavior from the unwashed masses, but for it to come from the republican party just shows a lack of sportsmanship which is so unappealing. It's childish.
to follow up, i was watching PBS this evening, and they actually said that as far as personal attack ads go, Obama's campaign staff have advised him not to make personal attacks in the upcoming debate. McCain has been using personal attacks on Obama as a tactic, but this has somewhat backfired. The public's opinion of McCain grows more and more negative as McCain resorts to personal attacks. Obama just has to sit back and basically do nothing.
I am glad that you brought up the issue of the McCain campaign's tactics in constantly referring to his opponent as Barack Hussein Obama. Although yes, this is his real name, it is important to realize that there are people in this country who think that this means that he is a Muslim, this makes a connection to Saddam Hussein, and that he is just not "patriotic and American". I think that firstly it is important to realize that even though Barack Obama is clearly a Christian and is not a Muslim and never has been a Muslim, what if he was? If we live in "the land of the free" which includes religious freedom, I think that it is really sad that the fact that if he was a Muslim, there is no way he could be president is a sad reality and shows how far our country still needs to go to fight racism. I think that the McCain campaign knows that having people at their rallies (as well as anchors on Fox News) include Obama's entire name will lead to incorrect assumptions by many usually uninformed Americans and will lead them not to vote for Obama. I know that our country has experienced horrific events of terrorism, but this does not give anyone a right to put down all Muslims, especially American ones and especially use the term Muslim to refer to something bad. I hope that the McCain campaign realized that yes, this is a legitimate campaign tactic, it is a dirty one and one that I would not want to associate with.
Post a Comment