John McCain and The White Man's Burden

In politics, a gaffe is when you accidentally reveal what you really think. In a press release last Friday, the McCain campaign unveiled a new TV ad that is intended to reach Latino voters by honoring their contributions to the United States but that instead commits a telling gaffe by reminding "us" that God loves "them" too:

So let's from time to time remember that these are God's children.

Jesse Jackson may be mad at Barack Obama for "talking down to black folks" -- but at least he never referred to blacks as "them" or demeaningly reminded a primarily white audience that blacks are "God's children too."

To be fair, the McCain footage in the ad is from a Republican debate last year, so the words originally were off-the-cuff remarks by McCain, not scripted (much). Viewers would be tempted to cut a candidate some slack in that setting, looking to the intention behind the remarks instead of parsing the words in detail. But by clipping this footage and putting it on television a year after the fact precisely to shape a message, the campaign is saying that it endorses both McCain's sentiments and McCain's specific words.

The ad's intention is good. It says true things about the contributions Latinos have made to America. Given its context in a Republican debate, it also shows courage, standing up to the Nativists in the Republican Party who tend to be paleolithic when it comes to seeing any good in non-Anglo cultures.

But McCain's attitude also is paternalistic, and underlying his comments is the archaic, imperialist sense of noblesse oblige -- the assumption that even though God chose, sadly, to make "them" (either the lower classes or some variety of colonized people) inferior to "us," we still have a moral duty to be kind to them and to recognize whatever good qualities they may have. Even the sentence structure of the ad -- that the subject (whites) should think nice things about the object (Latinos) -- is colonial. One prominent Latina journalist responded wryly when I asked for her take on McCain's ad: "I am glad we are God's children. I often had my doubts." Another, Marisa Treviño of Latina Lista, said:

You should be flabbergasted over the commercial. We all should be appalled.

(Marisa's subsequent blog post blasting the new McCain ad can be found here.)

I don't think McCain's a racist per se; I see him as a cultural chauvinist, not an ethnic one. But by running this ad, McCain and his handlers are revealing that they're not even aware of how demeaning, and dangerous, that subtle division of America into "us" and "them" really is. McCain's new ad tells us that he believes there are two Americas -- and that while he feels kindly toward the Latino America, it's not his true constituency.

But even more significant is that McCain seems to see Latinos (all of whom, apparently, he believes to be immigrants) in terms of what the poet of the British Empire, Rudyard Kipling, called "The White Man's Burden."

Kipling's poem of the same name was written a little over a century ago, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, a war McCain and his Iraq adviser Joe Lieberman would do well to read about today. The U.S. had conquered the Spanish colony of the Phillippines with relatively few casualties -- but was completely unprepared for the native insurgency that followed. Filipino guerrillas seeking independence killed more than 4,000 American troops, to the dismay of the American public, which had been told by an overconfident Administration and a criminally cooperative press that the war would be over quickly and that U.S. troops would be greeted by the Filipinos as liberators. Kipling, a fan of Empire, urged President Teddy Roosevelt not to end the occupation, saying that respecting Filipinos' requests for "freedom" would be a cave-in to "terror" and unfair to the heathen, wild, sullen, "half-devil and half-child" brown people America had "captured." It reads in part:

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain....

Our new war of occupation -- what Kipling called a "savage war of peace" -- is the same Burden, the same Terror, and the same War as the ones Kipling wrote to Teddy about. Iraq's President has clearly and repeatedly called for the U.S. to get the hell out of his country, please -- but McCain is taking Kipling's advice and ignoring those requests that we withdraw from our bloody occupation -- because, as Kipling put it, those who "call too loud on Freedom" are really just giving in to "weariness," and "Freedom" is just a "veil" concealing "the threat of terror."

What does Iraq have to do with McCain's views about Latinos? A couple of things. One is that, as most Latinos know and most Anglos do not, the history of American Latinos is the history of America's sporadic, disastrous attempts to become an empire. The Spanish-American War, for example, began with exactly the kind of government propaganda, secret political and economic agendas, and yellow journalism that misled us into Iraq -- and resulted in America's acquisition, in addition to Guam and the Phillippines, of the Hispanic territories of Puerto Rico and the naval base at Guantanamo Bay. In other words, as America's Puerto Rican and Cuban Latinos are well aware, America's efforts to expand its political and economic empire in 1898 led precisely to the kind of century-long occupations McCain considers acceptable in the Middle East today. Some Latinos consider America's domination of Puerto Rico and Guantanamo a blessing; some consider it a curse; but nearly all are conscious of the impacts America's past dreams of Empire have had on their community.

Even more significant, though, is the glimpse the ad gives into McCain's larger inclination to divide not just America, but the whole world as well, into a superior "us" and an inferior "them," with "them" needing our intervention whether they like it or not. McCain's worldview is a modern incarnation of Kipling's, one that sees nobility in the willingness to sacrifice, to bleed and die and "bind our sons to exile" (ie, to serve endlessly in wars overseas), to save "them," wherever they may live, from themselves. It's a "suffering servant" worldview, not the crassly commercial one of the British East India Company or Halliburton, but it's imperialistic nonetheless, and it explains McCain's stated willingness to remain in Iraq for a century if needed, even if the Iraqis don't want us there. It explains the courage he showed in Vietnam -- his willingness to voluntarily remain in captivity while continuing to affirm that "the wrong side won." It helps explain why McCain's book "Faith of My Fathers" discusses his family's legacy of overseas military service using religious terms, as if Empire and Faith aren't separable in his mind.

It's a courageous, self-sacrificing and benevolent view. And it leads down a bloody, endless road that America, like England before us, has been down before, and should not willingly start down again.

UPDATE: OffTheBus "Listening Post" audio of McCain campaign conference call announcing and explaining the "God's Children" ad here.

Follow M.S. Bellows, Jr. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/msbellows

Comments

[wmbear]

IN MCCAIN'S CASE...

The white man IS the burden....

[GHENT007]

i keep hearing john mccain saying, I KNOW HOW TO WIN WARS!! question? what war did you personally win? WORLD WAR 1, 2, OR THE ONE YOUR PLANNING WORLD WAR 3, the last time i checked you were a prisoner of war, in vietnam, and in case you dont remember WE LOST THAT WAR MR. MCCAIN!!!

[memi69]

All I can say is, "damn."

[timtnnc]

I'm with memi69: "damn and double damn." That's the best analysis yet on where McCain's coming from and where he would lead us as a nation. At least it makes him seem a little less crazy. If it's all the same to you though, I think I'll just go with the skinny kid from Hawaii. I believe he would move us forward, rather than drag us back into the 19th Century.

[hopeless277]

He, like Obama and Bush, do what his corporate masters tell him to do. The sooner we all accept facism as our new form of government, the sooner we can all get those snappy uniforms and boots you see in the movies.

[twiggy2]

it is not the whites man's burden to recognize ethnic differences, as having full human qualties?
my God you almost sound human- yourself.
in case any one does not know " FULL HUMAN QUALITIES ARE GOD GIVEN; AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. maybe white men should be reminded of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self -evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---- if your circle of friends, associates, church members don't include people of other ethnic back grounds, which you interact with on a regular basis, you can't speak for how they feel; because you don't know!
it has always been them against us. them being the white man, us being everybody else. it is really sad that human rights have to mandated by legislation, instead of man's empathy and compassion for each other . where is the compassion? where is the love, for mankind? arent' we our brothers keeper? this is not a rt/lft issue it is a human issue.

[AzRealProgressive]

Nc way twiggy. Worshipping at the altar of the whiteman scapegoat is rhetoric without substance. That is an academic position, not a real world illustration and a loser in the society.

White men do not need to be reminded of what is in the Declaration of Independence. The writers were white and in the following years hundreds of thousands of white men have died living up to it.

How about an example for you?

Muhammad Ali was born Cassius Marcellus Clay. His name carries a special connotation to it from his area of birth. Know why? Cassius Marcellus Clay was a fierce fighter against slavery and engaged in street fights with those who fought different. He was such an admired man that to be named after him was a greatest honor Clay's mother could attach to him.

Cassius Marcellus Clay was a white man.

[robXdion]

I don't think McCain's words were bad considering so many whites have trouble seeing non-whites as authentic US citizens. Or as real "Americans". McCain seems to be shouldering the burden of reminding many whites to see the humanity in others not like themselves. To blame the correction of that ingrained attitude solely on him for pointing it out is wrong. Your ire is misplaced and should be aimed at white Republicans and even Democrats that grudgingly see other ethnicities as plausibly human capable of being leaders or having a shred of nobility. McCain is just the messenger. I think the real issue is YOU take offense to anyone pointing this out. It shouldn't be a "White Man's Burden" to recognize other ethnicities as having full human qualities.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree that McCain was trying to do the right thing in, as you wrote, "shouldering the burden of reminding many whites to see the humanity in others not like themselves." I say so in the article. My beef is with the fact that he said "we" need to recognize "their" humanity, thus identifying himself with one group and not the other. If he had said "some people need to remember that these are God's children too," or even better, "let's not forget that we're all, every one of us, children of God," then I wouldn't have written this post. It's a subtle difference, but I'll stand by my assertion that the fact that McCain used "us/them" language suggests an "us/them" worldview that affects how he would address foreign affairs.

[robXdion]

Good point. I understand you clearly. No harm no foul.

[wheresthebeef]

I'm no fan of Senator McCain's, but I must be missing something. How is referring to someone as "them," "they," or "these people" racist? There's enough real racism in America (and in the rest of the world, for that matter). Suggesting that McCain's comments fall into that category simply dilutes the impact of the real thing. McCain took a principled stand against the slope-brows in his own party with his original call for comprehensive immigration reform. His back-tracking on the issue may make him a pandering flip-flopper, but it hardly makes him a racist.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

I was pretty careful not to call McCain a racist -- please check out my reply to Nommo's comment below (the very first one) for more explanation of my thoughts there. (That reply's not showing up yet as of the time I'm posting this, but hopefully soon!) To me it's primarily a culturocentric thing, not a racial one.

[FanofPaine]

I can't say if McCain meant it this way, but my experience has been that when people say "us" or "we" and "them" in a manner which "us" or "we" means the norm, the good people, are looking down on the "them". It's usually meant to insinuate that the "we" is better than the "them" and that the "we" should try to think well of "those", or in this case, "these" people. It's a very denigrating term.

I once had a classmate tell me she didn't know "those people" read outside of the classroom, meaning in my case, black people. It's talking down to someone but seeming not to. It's a backhanded compliment in which the person being complimented doesn't feel complimented at all; I find that people use the term(s) when talking about women or people of color. I can't imagine McCain making the same ad about young, white soldiers. And actually, it's meant well, which is even worse. The person making the statement genuinely thinks they are complimenting a person. It it usually used in a "complimentary" fashion from the person making the statement.

[booksnmore4you]

>One prominent Latina journalist responded wryly when I asked for her take
>on McCain's ad: "I am glad we are God's children. I often had my doubts."

ROFL. Perfectly said.

[ramara]

Exactly - this is a colonial war, and that is why there is no way to define victory. And that is why it makes sense that so much of what we are doing in Iraq is being done by businesses - colonialism is if anything a commercial enterprise. Good piece.

[harriscrl3]

I saw that ad and I thought by saying that they are God's chlildren it made Latino seem like they are special and not special in a good way. I thought it was offensive but these days one persons offensive is another person's WOW. It would be one thing if he said we are all God's children but to say they just make it seem like they exist apart from him when they too are Americans and whats even more ironic is that they too are military people since thats who the ad is targeted to so why say they instead of we.

Carol

[Gma11]

Well said.

[Nommo]

What is a "per se" racist?

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

I wrote that I don't consider McCain a racist "per se" because I don't think for a second that he believes people are inherently smarter or dumber, more or less industrious, etc. based on the color of their skin. One of his own children is a very dark-skinned, adopted Bangladeshi girl, and I'm sure he believes she can accomplish as much in life as his unadopted white children.

I added the "per se," though, because I also believe that MCain does believe in the inherent superiority of Western European, and especially American, culture; and I can't think of any example of someone asserting cultural superiority that doesn't involve some element of racism, deep down. Would McCain so glibly dismiss Iraq's request that we set a timetable for withdrawal if Iraqis had light skin, blond hair, blue eyes? I doubt it. If Sweden were primarily Muslim, I suspect they'd get more respect than Middle Eastern countries get -- with the explanation being that Swedish "culture" is understandable and palatable to McCain. And that explanation would mostly be true, even though racism is imbedded in that definition of "culture" as well.

Hope that makes sense.

[StillIRise]

I agree with the spirit of your comments. I truly appreciate Senator and Cindy McCain's willingness to so selflessly and lovingly open their arms, hearts and home to the Bangladesh orphan whom they've adopted as their own child. Yet, as an African American, it has been my experience that some white people who extend themselves to others unlike them in this way merely see themselves as "martyrs." This is particularly true of those who act in a humane way toward others such as this, and yet continue to harbor a worldview that contradicts their actions. I don't think you can separate one from the other by using words like, "per se." Racist people can do good things, yet when one looks upon themselves and others through an "us and them" lens, based on the color of skin or ethnicity, and ultimately sees themselves as superior and others unlike them as inferior, then it is racism. Racism can no more be qualfied than one can qualify pregnancy. A woman cannot be a little pregnant or pregnant per se. Either she is or she isn't, and the same is true of a racist, regardless of the good they do. They're just good racists, but racist nonetheless.