In the 1980's, billionaire conservative gadfly Ross Perot received the prestigious Winston Churchill Award at a lavish Dallas dinner. Prince Charles himself came across the pond for the event, and local high society, Republican to a fault, rushed around town in the two weeks beforehand booking lessons on how to curtsy in front of royalty.
Never mind that America fought a war to escape British tyranny. The social set is big on ceremony, and this was as big as it gets.
Fast forward a quarter-century. President Obama bowed this week when greeting Japanese Emperor Akihito, and the conservative media and blogosphere went positively apoplectic. The co-host of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy, prattled on about how Americans haven't bowed in over 200 years. Yeah, right.
Doocy is dim-witted, but reprehensible best describes Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of the far-right Washington Times (owned by the religious Moonies.). He writes in his November 17 column that the president's predilection for bowing is because "he was sired by a Kenyan father" and "born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World," and thus "has no natural instinct or blood impulse" for what this nation represents.
Does he mean "sired" as in the breeding term for animals? Little doubt.
As we see from the images below, however, Eisenhower bowed before De Gaulle (a Frenchman, sacré bleu!), Nixon bowed before Emperor Hirohito (who'd ordered the bombing of Pearl Harbor), and George W. Bush actually kissed the Saudi Arabian King, something his former press secretary Dana Perino admitted to Wolf Blitzer on CNN was "the customary thing to do."
I'd say damn near making out with a foreign leader beats a ceremonial bow any day, wouldn't you?
Even Bob Dylan, arguably the world's most famous Jewish artist, knelt before a seated and throned Pope John Paul ll after performing in his Holy presence. The Bard was not expressing subservience to the Catholic faith and its leading acolyte.
Yet when Obama engages in these same kinds of traditional acts, right-wing heads explode. What blithering, racist fools these mortals be.
as the participants ritually murmer 'Nah-mah-stay'.
Much more civil and much healthier to not shake hands and spread germs.
that sounds a lot like when Bush said "you're with us or against us"
Honestly, not every critic of the President is out to get him.
And just to burst your bubble, here's a pop quiz. Which cable news network was the only network to cover the broadcast of Obama's Berlin Wall Anniversary speech in its entirety?
That would be Fox and those of that ilk... goes to show even the "bad guys" aren't always bad.
Fast forward to November 14, 2009, again in Tokyo. A younger POTUS is bowing deeply to the older Emperor Akihito. Except for the handshake (which is gaining popularity in Japan) the POTUS is flawless and proper. This scene had been witnessed by millions in Japan over two thousand years and is greatly appreciated as a courteous and proper protocol. It does not demean the POTUS or the US in any way. Older Japanese do not miss the irony that Emperor Akihito is the son of Hirohito, and the POTUS action represent a new day for Japan. This helps Prime Minister Hatoyama in keeping Japan as the strongest friend and ally of the US in asia. I applaud President Obama's conduct and utterances during his current trip to asia.
The POTUS however does not bow, esp. to hereditary monarchs and royalty. Deep bowing while looking at the ground is a dramatic sign of fealty and subservience. If bowing didn't have such connotations then it wouldn't be done in the first place. It is not meaningless-it carries deep meaning.
You default to racism and conservatism charges as being solely behind the criticism. One can definitely tell an author has nothing when he pulls those two outta his bag. It 's journalism at its laziest.
You back up your argument with pictures that show wildly different gestures compared to what we are talking about here. Two leaders tilting in, looking eye to eye is not what we are talking about. Bob Dylan (for gods sake do you even understand what the issue is here?) looking into the Popes eyes and shaking his hand is a ridiculous example. The only apparent bow is by Eisenhower to DeGaulle. The funny thing is, DeGaulle looks as confused and embarrassed by the gesture as many feel today about Obama's bow.
Finally, as embarrassing as Bush the criminal's gesture toward the Saudi King was, he did not bow to him in an act of subservience. Holding hands and kissing is not a sign of anything but affection. Goofy yes, featly no.
It is largely ceremonial. As Dana Perino explained about the Bush/Saudi hand-holding and kiss in the CNN video link I included, the State department has a big 'ol book with all the ceremonial guidelines.
And Bob Dylan is not a ridiculous example. He knelt before a seated and throned Pope because it's the ceremonial thing to do, even though he and the Pope come from vastly differing religious traditions, just like Ike and de Gaulle come from differing political traditions.
As for Bush and his family, their relationship with the Saudi royals is almost familial. Their kissing and handholding almost feels straight out of the Godfather to me!
I didn't write favorably or unfavorably about the whole business of this ceremony and tradition, merely to point out that when those other examples happened, the earth on the political Right didn't shake. When President Obama does it, however, we get another round of "sired" by a Kenyan, etc, etc, etc.
You're entitled to not see and hear racism in the reaction Obama elicits from his opponents. He's entitled to not see racism in the reaction. But I see it and hear it, and I, too, am entitled. It isn't my "default" position.
-Not in Japan. It is a formal sign of respect and acknowledgment that the person you are bowing to is of a higher social station than you (people bow to teachers, they're grandparents, etc). Which is true, the man is the emperor of Japan the highest social station possible in Japan. Obama is in Japan, not the US, so the bow is appropriate. Its simple respect for a country's sovereignty, something our previous leader failed to demonstrate in actions or in symbolic gestures.