Obama, Being Called a Muslim Is Not a Smear - Updated
Hillary Clinton denied leaking the photo of Barack Obama wearing a turban, but her campaign manager says that even if she had, it would be no big deal. "Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."
Sure, she did. And George W. Bush put on a fetching Chamato poncho in Santiago, while Paul Wolfowitz burned up YouTube with his antimalarial African dance routines when he was World Bank prez. The obvious difference is this: when white politicians go ethnic, they just look funny. When a black presidential contender does it, he looks foreign. And when the ethnic apparel in question is vaguely reminiscent of the clothing worn by Iraqi and Afghan fighters (at least to many Fox viewers, who think any headdress other than a baseball cap is a declaration of war on America), the image is downright frightening.
The turban "scandal" is all part of what is being referred to as "the Muslim smear." It includes everything from exaggerated enunciations of Obama's middle name to the online whisper campaign that Obama attended a fundamentalist madrassa in Indonesia (a lie), was sworn in on a Koran (another lie) and if elected would attach RadioShack speakers to the White House to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer (I made that one up).
So far, Obama's campaign has responded with aggressive corrections that tout his Christian faith, attack the attackers and channel a cooperative witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee. "Barack has never been a Muslim or practiced any other faith besides Christianity," states one fact sheet. "I'm not and never have been of the Muslim faith," Obama told a Christian News reporter.
Of course Obama must correct the record, but he doesn't have to stop there. What is disturbing about the campaign's response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire "Muslim smear": that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame. Obama's supporters often say they are being "Swiftboated," casually accepting the idea that being accused of Muslimhood is tantamount to being accused of treason.
Substitute another faith or ethnicity, and you'd expect a very different response. Consider a report from the archives of The Nation. Thirteen years ago, Daniel Singer, the magazine's late, much-missed Europe correspondent, went to Poland to cover a hotly contested presidential election. He reported that the race had descended into an ugly debate over whether one of the candidates, Aleksander Kwasniewski, was a closet Jew. The press claimed his mother had been buried in a Jewish cemetery (she was still alive), and a popular TV show aired a skit featuring the Christian candidate dressed as a Hasidic Jew. "What perturbed me," Singer wryly observed, "was that Kwasniewski's lawyers threatened to sue for slander rather than press for an indictment under the law condemning racist propaganda."
We should expect no less of the Obama campaign. When asked during the Ohio debate about Louis Farrakhan's support for his candidacy, Obama did not hesitate to call Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments "unacceptable and reprehensible." When the turban photo flap came up in the same debate, he used the occasion to say nothing at all.
Farrakhan's infamous comments about Jews took place 24 years ago. The orgy of hate that is "the Muslim smear" is unfolding in real time, and it promises to greatly intensify in a general election. These attacks do not simply "smear Barack's Christian faith," as John Kerry claimed in a campaign mailing. They are an attack on all Muslims, some of whom actually do exercise their rights to cover their heads and send their kids to religious school. Thousands even have the very common name Hussein. All are watching their culture used as a crude bludgeon against Obama, while the candidate who is the symbol of racial harmony fails to defend them. This at a time when US Muslims are bearing the brunt of the Bush administration's assaults on civil liberties, including dragnet wiretapping, and are facing a documented spike in hate crimes.
Occasionally, though not nearly enough, Obama says that Muslims are "deserving of respect and dignity." What he has never done is what Singer called for in Poland: denounce the attacks themselves as racist propaganda, in this case against Muslims.
The core of Obama's candidacy is that he alone -- who lived in Indonesia as a boy and has an African grandmother -- can "repair the world" after the Bush wrecking ball. That repair job begins with the 1.4 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom are convinced that the United States has been waging a war against their faith. This perception is based on facts, among them the fact that Muslim civilians are not counted among the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan; that Islam has been desecrated in US-run prisons; that voting for an Islamic party resulted in collective punishment in Gaza. It is also fueled by the rise of a virulent strain of Islamophobia in Europe and North America.
As the most visible target of this rising racism, Obama has the power to be more than its victim. He can use the attacks to begin the very process of global repair that is the most seductive promise of his campaign. The next time he's asked about his alleged Muslimness, Obama can respond not just by clarifying the facts but by turning the tables. He can state clearly that while a liaison with a pharmaceutical lobbyist may be worthy of scandalized exposure, being a Muslim is not. Changing the terms of the debate this way is not only morally just but tactically smart -- it's the one response that could defuse these hateful attacks. The best part is this: unlike ending the Iraq War and closing Guantánamo, standing up to Islamophobia doesn't need to wait until after the election. Obama can use his campaign to start now. Let the repairing begin.
From The Nation
www.naomiklein.org
Update:
Ari Melber has criticized this column, citing a video the Obama campaign has been circulating featuring a member of Obama's church who makes is clear that while Obama is not a Muslim, there would be nothing wrong with it if he was. I had the same clip sent to me directly from the Obama campaign and wrote this in response:
"What I am suggesting needs to be said can only be said by the man himself, just as he has taken brave stances against racism directed at Latinos under the guise of fighting illegal immigration. Do not underestimate the message that his silence is sending, not just in the U.S. but around the world."One more thing: now is the time when candidates are most open to pressure. For instance, Hillary Clinton just announced that she will co-sponsor legislation to ban the use of private military companies -- exactly one day after my Nation colleague Jeremy Scahill revealed that both Clinton and Obama were poised to let the mercenaries stay in Iraq even if the troops come home. Pushing candidates on the issues during a campaign can have a real impact, so can we please move beyond superfandom? I have also heard from people who think that saying Arabs and Muslims are worthy of exactly the same rights and protections as other minorities is just too high-risk a position for Obama during the campaign. If that's the position, so be it, but don't pretend the campaign is doing something it is not. It is precisely because he has been so strong on other issues of discrimination and racism that his trepidation on this issue leaps out.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Those are some nice words about Obama but I am underwhelmed with this premise. First, John Hagee endorsed John McCain. Hagee is responsible for some of the most incendiary lauguage against Muslims and Catholics. Should the same standard apply in this case?
I agree with you on most of your comments, but Obama’s (father’s) roots are African, and last I’ve checked, Islam is not a race but rather a religion with folk ranging from different colors, ethnicities etc.
With that aside, you are absolutely right in saying that there is a missed opportunity if people of Muslim faith feel their issues are not getting address by the candidates.
I also agree with your statement that staying silent when others make bigoted or racist remarks is equally wrong.
Nice post.
Also sexist...Just to add to nunzia's point.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Iraq war. It is that simple! When it counted, Hillary did the wrong thing and it wasn't the first time or the last time. Hillary is just wrong for the Country and there is no excuse for her that will make voting for her a pleasure. She is tainted goods and poisonous to America. She had her chance to stand up for Americans and she didn't. That is not Presidential material no matter what she happens to be gender or ethnicity wise. She voted to kill people to further her own self interests. She is not feminist and she is no Democrat!
First, most people at that time thought it was the best avenue to go to war. Second, it's easy to say
"ProgressiveNotLiberal" anything when you are not having to be in the trenches and take real action, rather then just armchair speeches!
OBAMA is ALL talk.
There were many people in the Congress, like Kennedy and Feingold, who voted against it. There were millions of us non-politicians who were against preemptive war where there was no proof of us being in harm's way. Obama was runing for Senate at the time he took the position which was far more politically dangerous than one is sitting in a 6 year Senate terms.
Hmmm. I thought this over and my conclusion is that Islam is not good for women.
Doesn't matter to me if every hijab-wearing women in the world tells me that it's her choice to wear it. Doesn't make a damned difference to me.
I object to that, in the same way I object to nuns walking around in similar ancient garb or Hasidic women wearing wigs.
I don't like the notion that women have to cover themselves.
If there's a danger that some man will get turned on by the sight of a woman,
that's his damned problem. His penis to control.
As a matter of fact, most fundamentalist religions are bad for women.
I wouln't vote for any candidate who says he's a fundamentalist anything.
Just as there's a huge difference between "Christianity" and "Fundamentalist Christianity", there's a huge difference between "Islam" and "Fundamentalist Islam". Islam isn't the problem. Fundamentalism/Fanaticism is.
But, is there?
I agree. I support Obama. And I hope that he, his surrogates, and his supporters will go beyond denying that he is a Muslim and seize this opportunity to speak out against the racist animus that lies behind this reprehensible attempt to use "Muslim" as a smear.
Obama needs to make a speech where he says-
"Approximately 1/3 of the world is Muslim, and suggesting that it's wrong, or a bad thing to be Muslim, is saying that ALL of them are enemies, or terrorists. Why does John McCain hate ALL Muslims????????"
Let them respond to that.
Let's be honest about who is going to be voting for Obama. It will be predominantly Christians. With the impact of 9/11 there is am implication that if you are Muslim you hate America. Barack is my ideal of what a great leader can be. Unfortunately if there is enough innuendo that Barack is a Muslim his odds for becoming that great leader are going to be greatly damaged. I say Barack is smart to try to minimize the Muslim issue.
First, if ever I'm being sworn in for anything, I will elect to put my hand on "The Shock Doctrine" as I believe it to be one of the most important books to be written in our lifetime. True, It got me so angry at times I could chew through steel, but I'd rather be in the know than not.
Second, however, is the fact that by and large Americans are SO uneducated, so misinformed, so pathetically credulous, married to the fact that most media outlets are so shallow, so dishonest, and feel so blessed to be Right Wing Extreme stenographers, that standing up for Muslims could very well be enough to cost him the election.
The words would be twisted to manipulate and shape subconscious perception (what most Americans use by default to evaluate the World) and sure enough, otherwise seemingly intelligent Americans will say, "Hmmm, I don't know if I want a pro-Muslim [read:terrorist] in the White House.
Total BS. Obama doesn't have to accept being called a Muslim (and he has been called that) any more than Hillary Clinton has to accept being called a Lesbian (and she has been called that) --- even though there is nothing "wrong" with either charge.
The difference is you don't find Hillary's campaign getting in a fit every time that accusation is made. Hillay does not get worked up issuing denials because of that.
The fact that Obama's campaign responds the way they do, indicates that they believe there is something wrong with being a muslim, or having a middle name Hussein, or wearing traditional muslim attire.
IMHO, their response only makes the problem worse not better. This article is exactly on point. Their response has been inadequate. They should have responded by forcefully defending muslims and foreign cultures, and then following up with an unforceful refutation with the fact that he is not a muslim. But he is so forceful in defending himself, he ends up implying that he is ashamed of his middle name, or the turban he wore, or that he believes being a muslim is so bad that it must be a smear.
Except the Obama campaign isn't the one making the lesbian accusations.
I couldn't possibly agree with you more.
The smear of his multicultural name and unique and esteemed heritage has vacuous merit. Though it caused someone who I once respected to idiotically assume him to be a terrorist, still could soften our image amongst the 30% (if not more) of the global population who have been affronted by our myopic intolerance in recent years.
Their concerns far outweighs the 20% of American throwbacks who espouse unenlightened bigotry.
Most under 40 are not buying into it at all.
He is potentially a phenomenal redeemer.
Hope you saw these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=292522
http://www.sedonadigitalarts.com/html/video_previews.html
We could learn quite a bit from this wombat.
http://www.global-mindshift.org/memes/wombat.swf
Thank you for your intrepid efforts in exposing disaster capitalism.
Those who profit on the backs of the suffering are completely reprehensible.
Their time of dominance is thankfully on the wane.
Stephanie Miller funnily suggested that we should all change our middle names and name our babies "Hussein" to neutralize the smear. One of her callers offered up the astute reminder of King Hussein of Jordan who was much beloved and our total ally.
It just means "handsome one" anyway.
Potentially a "redeemer?"
Sorry, but my whacko radar just started beeping.
Sorry you perceive redemption to be at all whacky.
That's kind of sad.
"Mechanistic reductionism often masquerades as maturity."
Hope you're having fun with that.
I much prefer playfulness.
Senator Obama has campaigned non stop for many months. Is he supposed to defend himself against the manipulation going on here and go on about there is nothing wrong about that particular faith?
It's now Senator Obama's fault people have used scare tactics against him and he wants talk little about it and address campaign issues related to this country.
The real question is why have the media let the Clinton's get away with these dirty political moves? It's their motives that are bad, regardless whether it's ok or not ok to be Muslim. 90% of Americans already know it ok to be Muslim, we don't need Senator Obama telling us the truth.
Aren't you ultimately asking the wrong person(s) to change their behavior? You say that "[w]hat is disturbing about the campaign's response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire 'Muslim smear.'" How about focusing on the reprehensible "Muslim smears" and those making them? Aren't they the real problem and not so much Senator Obama's response? Politically speaking, the last thing Senator Obama's campaign should be doing is repeatedly jumping up and saying "disgraceful and racist." The smears are "disgraceful and racist" but you are asking him to ignore political realities and throw his campaign under the bus. It seems to me that the high moral ground is to take a stand against the people slinging the mud and not the target.
In Barack's responses and counterattacks, all you need to do is replace the word "Muslim" with the word "Jew" and you'll see exactly why Naomi Klein is so right.
If any candidate would have made those kinds of remarks denying his "Jewishness" or saying "I am not a Jew and have never been a Jew" without saying in the same breath that this whole accusation smacks of blatant racism and bigotry - the MSM press would have been all over him.
If Barack does not show more courage, more leadership in these areas - I may decide to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
And for those with the Pavolvian response, "But that is so dangerous because it's tantamount to handing McBomb the presidency" my reply is: VOTE-PAIRING. (look it up on the internet or see Jamin Raskin's articles in Slate).
To be honest, people accused John Kerry of being Jewish and he denied it, but the MSM didn't really seem to care that much and dropped the issue. It never percolated. This is a different situation, and I think the appropriate answer is to put out a commercial showing Barack Obama with Jewish and Muslim supporters in the same commercial in the same way that campaign member made "Si se puede cambiar."
Don't throw Muslim people under the bus, bring everyone together visually and show that it can happen.
Good article. I'm an Obama supporter, but I have to agree. I'm sure he agrees with you, but I bet he's hesitant to call use the word "racist" because that could undermine his "post-racial" image and make him sound more like Sharpton or Jackson, the kinds of polarizing black leaders he's trying his hardest to distance himself from.
exactly my thoughts....I just think it would open himself up to too many attacks by the right. Once he's President, I would expect him to wholeheartedly denounce such trash.
ABSOLUTELY
Naomi,
I have yet to purchase "the Shock Doctrine," but I intend to do so in the very near future. Your skills in writing and in stating your case are impressive, and I feel all of what you've stated in this article is spot on. Keep up the good work.
I for one would like to see Obama clarify his position on a few issues:
Signing statement abuse
Repeal of BushCo executive orders
Restoration of the Constitution
Single-payer Healthcare & HR 676
Non-violent drug abuse penalties
These are just a few issues that need to be addressed by senator Obama.
Much to specific. Would definately split constituents into so many camps it would be bedlam. We really have to look at the broader picture and assume that this person is ideologically on a side I concurr with.
As to whether he will specifically agree with me or you on any particular point should not be what I would vote for against. Called compromise.
When my choice is in, then I will join the bombardment for my specifics. Of couse this all hinges on whether I also voted at the Congressional level my thought out choices.
You haven't been paying enough attention, Jacob. Obama has made his position very clear with respect to all of the issues you have raised. He has been VERY clear on the constitutional issues and addresses the Bush assault on the Constitution in his stump speech. He has stated that if health care were a clean slate, he would prefer a single-payer system, but since it's not and since a single-payer system has no chance of becoming law, he prefers the plan he has put forward. He is also on record opposing prison sentences for non-violent users as opposed to pushers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
