SuddenWorld.com

The America I look forward to living in is a nation where having “Hussein” as part of one’s name, regardless of whether you are the guy living next door or the guy in contention to be the next President of the United States, becomes a non-issue. No, let me rephrase that. “Non-issue” implies a lack of active engagement or understanding with matters that might fall outside our localized experiences, so how about I say instead, “I look forward to the day when we as Americans are able to look at ourselves, in all our cultural pluralism, with a true sense of enlightened context.”

I say this in response to the disappointing and, frankly, offensive tirade that has gotten a lot of press coverage recently by conservative radio talk show host Bill Cunningham (I’m sure to the secret glee of Mr. Cunningham whose bread and butter, so typical of vocally radical media pundits, comes from the manipulation of hyperbole), who had opened for the Republican presidential candidate John McCain at a Cincinnati rally. You can see a clip of his rhetoric in the clip below.

What’s so objectionable to me is not Mr. Cunningham’s political attacks questioning his record (an almost inevitable facet to most heated election campaigns)–I’ll let Senator Obama’s campaign managers and the media sort out the relative mendacity or veracity of his allegations–but the subtext applied to his rhetoric that essentially channels his inner-bigot.

And yes, Senator Obama’s full name is indeed Barack Hussein Obama. But faulting him for his name would be like like faulting by association anybody who happened to share the name “John” with John Wilkes Booth, the man who had assassinated President Abraham Lincoln. And like “John,” “Hussein” is not that uncommon a name, just not in our neck of the woods. We only happen to be familiar with the name due to the unfortunate infamy of an erstwhile Iraqi dictator.

Mr. Cunningham has made a most disingenuous protestation in a subsequent interview on the Fox network’s program “Hannity and Colmes” that he sees no problem in using Senator Obama’s middle name, going so far as to suggest he is honoring him with the gravitas that a full name affords such noted Presidents as Franklin Delano Roosevelt or John Fitzerald Kennedy.

Were it true, it would be quite the magnanimous but perhaps bipolar gesture from an individual–at a Republican rally mind you–who in the same breath called Democratic presidential candidate Senator Obama “a hack Chicago, Daley-style politician who is picturing himself as change.” Honestly, whose intelligence does he think he’s trying to insult?

Mr. Cunningham’s form of incipient racism is the kind that can be the most frustrating to contemplate for any minority. In America, at least a minority knows where he or she can stand in relation to the more overt expressions of racism, such as spray-painted swastikas or hanging nooses. Such clearly manifest forms of ethnic hatred are easy to identify and, being criminal acts, allow minorities to find, along with perfectly righteous indignation, appropriate legal recourse.

But in a way, the most difficult form of racism to deal with is the kind that is dealt by subterfuge and suggestion. A victim of these more subtle forms of racism can make accusations, but a perpetrator can hide behind false intentions to the point of making the victim appear to be overreacting, or even worse, to appear to be race-baiting.

This is precisely the form of insidious racism that Mr. Cunningham is using. He has made the argument that people who take issue with use of the name “Hussein” are the ones that are actually the bigots. The sad truth of the matter is, there is some validity to his statement…but I’ll speak to that later on. The matter at hand is Mr. Cunningham’s particular brand of racism.

Regardless of the reasoning behind why some object to hearing Senator Obama’s middle name used, it still doesn’t make him any less complicit in his own unacknowledged bigotry. A closet bigot’s classic technique is borrowed straight from the magician’s handbook regarding the art of misdirection, i.e. drawing the audience’s attention to one action while the real action is going on elsewhere.

Let’s look at how Mr. Cunningham accomplishes this:

1. He, being a media person, would be savvy to the marketing power of names in the public arena; and knowing that names do not occur in a vacuum, he would know how appeal to the xenophobia of the less enlightened members of his audience regarding Senator Obama’s full name.
2. He would know that the name “Hussein,” besides having a negative association with the former Iraqi dictator Sadam Hussein, is of Arabic origin and thus also carries unfortunate negative connotations across America due to the myopic coverage by mainstream media of radical Islam.
3. He would know there are certain political realities, for better or for worse, needed to become an elected official in the United States, e.g., U.S. politicians have predominantly Christian affiliations; so the more he can ramp up apocryphal allegations of Muslim ties to Senator Obama’s campaign, the better to galvanize Obama’s opponents. For the record, Senator Obama is Christian.
4. He would know that emphasizing his middle name (even going so far as to engage in further hyperbole by having called him “Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama” on his own radio show, even though Mohammed is not part of his name) and coyly placing such references as “the great prophet” to falsely create a Muslim subtext.
5. He would also know that since “Hussein” is Senator Obama’s legal middle name, he would gain an inoculation against most accusations of bigotry. Thus he would be free to conduct a campaign of what amounts to guerrilla racism.

Continue Reading »

Living as a minority in the United States, there is one particular luxury that I have always envied about the white majority, a feature of their cultural existence that ethnic minorities are not easily afforded, particularly those ethnic minorities with features that would identify them as distinctly non-European. A white person (I speak of those who have assimilated by more than one generation into the American mainstream) has the benefit of being perceived, more often than not, as an an individual before any assumed generalizations about his or her ethnic group.

Take for example my experiences in meeting new people: I am on occasion confronted with what my fellow minorities would recognize as “the question.” It is the question of one’s ethnic identity. For the most part, there is no intended ill will meant by such the inquiry–it comes from a genuine, if perhaps socially indiscreet, desire to know. Such curiosity is doubtlessly further spurred by the ethnic uncertainty proposed by my last name (which is another story altogether).

The range of tact inherent to the query varies according to the inquirer’s deftness with words and relative sensitivity to cultural matters. In attempting to “learn” about my ethnic identity, I’ve been asked, “What’s your background?”, “What’s your nationality?”, “Where are you from?”, “Where were your parents born?”, “Where were you born?”, “Are you Chinese?”, “Are you Japanese?”, and my favorite one that seems to question the evolutionary viability of my very being, “What are you?”

Depending on my mood, the question asked, and the person asking, my answer will vary. To questions about my nationality and where I was born, I usually respond with deliberate obtuseness that I’m an American who was born in Chicago. If I’m feeling charitable, I’ll eventually tell them the information they were really after–that I’m Korean American–but not without a dramatic pause in the pernicious hope that the asker will realize the folly of the assumptions inherent to his or her question. Sometimes I may redirect the question with all the ingenuousness I can muster, “Oh, do you mean my ethnic background?”

But no matter which form of “the question” is asked, and no matter how I answer, I always feel compelled to ask back (although I never have), “Why is it important for you to know that particular detail about myself; and if I were white, would you have asked the same question (with the intent of learning my ethnic background)?

This is not to say I don’t want to share with other people that significant part of me that informs my identity. But usually the intent behind the question seems not be out of a genuine desire to learn more about my Korean heritage so much as the compulsion to categorize me under whatever superficial knowledge the asker has about my particular ethnic group. Why not ask me what television shows I like, first? What books I’ve read? What I do for a living? To my mind, a first meeting is about trying to establish common ground, not to look for differences.

Individuals are not the only ones guilty of this tendency. It happens on an institutionalized level, as well. Take the striking contrast of the media portrayal and public perception of the Oklahoma City bombing against the the more recent 9/11 attacks.

At the outset of coverage for the Oklahoma City bombing, there was initial speculation that those responsible for blowing up the Murrah Federal Building could have been terrorists of Middle Eastern origin. It came as quite a surprise to the viewing public when the perpetrators turned out to be two white Americans.

Following the tragedy, there was some concern about radicalized white militias living in the United States, but those perception have not been sustained in the public consciousness the same way the fear of Muslim radicals has. The public had developed the conviction that individuals like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were horrific exceptions to the perceived rule of generally law-abiding whites. We were not haunted by a lingering fear that every white person was lying in wait to blow us to kingdom come.

Has that same luxury of finding the exception to the rule applied to Muslims in the wake of 9/11? Following the aftermath, various government officials had to warn the general populace against attacking in unthinking retribution against innocent people perceived to be of Middle Eastern heritage. People were warned that such offenses would be prosecuted as federal hate crimes.

Despite the warnings, some bigoted vitriol spilled over, even into ethnic communities whose religious background was not even Muslim! Peruse this article from The Pluralism Project at Harvard for more information on reported hate crimes post 9/11: http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=74090. In the case Oklahoma City bombings, insofar as potential citizen backlash against targeting particular white communities, there were no such similar concerns.

Furthermore, the mass media hasn’t helped in the average Muslim’s plight. By devoting the majority of their air time regarding Muslims to the most radical fringe elements of Islam, these extremists have unfairly come to reflect upon the majority of citizens who are law-abiding. Viewers are rarely given enough examples of everyday Muslims to dispel an irrational fear against entire ethnic groups. Representation of the white majority spans a huge spectrum, which allows us to consider white individuals on a case by case basis, in lieu of any perceived characteristics of “whiteness.”

For all ethnic minorities, this kind of racial profiling has come to mean an egregious double-standard. Blacks and Latinos have historically fought constantly against perceptions that have denied them fair, individualized treatment in regards to housing, education, employment, and the law. In the interests of “national security” during World War II, Japanese Americans in the US were forcibly detained in prison camps while no such initiatives were taken for German Americans. Minorities are still haunted by assumptions and generalizations that deny the primacy of individuality.

So to the white majority I say, don’t doubt the benefit of the doubt, and don’t forget to give your fellow citizens (who happen to be ethnic minorities), an equal measure of individual assessment.