C
hichijima
is
a
small,
desolate
rock
island
located in the south Pacific
and in 1944, it was
home to a Japanese
Naval
installation
that was subject to
frequent attacks by
American warplanes.
On Aug. 1 of that year,
a
young
lieutenant
was piloting a torpedo
bomber that was shot
down a few miles from
the island. He escaped
by parachute out of
his plane, landed in the
water, made it onto a raft and began
drifting toward the Japanese
island, which was known for its
cruel treatment of its prisoners
and confirmed cannibalism. He
was eventually rescued by a small
American submarine, and his
war career, this terrifying event
included, would prove to be crucial
in the shape and formation of the
politician he would become later
in life.
Former
President
George
Herbert Walker Bush enlisted
as a fighter pilot to liberate
the oppressed from the Axis
powers. This struggle against
blind nationalism and radical
policies continued all his life.
His presidency was not defined
by conservatism or profound
Republican ideology, but instead,
his administration was moderate
and pragmatic, working toward a
common goal with the other side
of the aisle.
I recently finished reading Jon
Meacham’s “Destiny and Power,”
the 2015 biography on Bush,
which details these struggles with
radicals utilizing nationalism both
home and abroad. His political
battles later in life cost him his
presidency.
He
raised
taxes
despite
the
uncompromising
nature of the far right, enacted
legislation for minorities and the
disabled despite pushback from
staunch conservatives and most
importantly, he convinced the
nation not to hide behind guns
and patriotism in the face of a
foreign danger and simultaneously
demonstrated when, where and
how military force is necessary to
solve a crisis.
Bush
had
seen
how
the
nationalism of Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan were disguises the
public bought into, allowing for the
heinous governments to proceed
with truly evil policy. Therefore,
he refused to submit to the blind
nationalism to which many within
his party fell prey. His ability
to place country over party was
essential in ending the Cold War
with the Soviet Union. Yet, this
all contributed to him losing his
re-election in 1992. Following his
defeat, the Republican
Party
allowed
for
its radical right to
grow
louder
and
stronger,
preaching
blind nationalism to
its
uncompromising
followers. His eldest
son’s
administration
and the Republican
Party in opposition
to former President
Barack Obama further
contributed
to
the
growth of the dangerous ideology
that was once the party of George
H.W. Bush.
All of this culminated in the
swearing in of our Celebrity
President, Donald Trump, who in
his “American carnage” speech
touted the same nationalist and
populist rhetoric that has been
heard before in the past. A man
many feared for already displaying
authoritarian tendencies during
his
campaign
and
transition
period, whether it be refusing to
remove himself from his many
business interests or condemning
and silencing members of the
press, gave an inaugural address
that stated, “When you open your
heart to patriotism, there is no
room for prejudice.”
His administration has begun
on a note of authoritarians using
nationalism and love of one’s
country to mask injustices and
to start a campaign against
the free American media. His
press
secretary
Sean
Spicer
lambasted the press over the most
insignificant of issues — that the
size of his inauguration crowd
was actually larger than reported.
His counselor Kellyanne Conway
then further dragged America
into
George
Orwell’s
“1984”
with her argument that Spicer
was simply offering “alternative
facts.” And finally, the president’s
chief strategist Stephen Bannon
said the media should “keep
its mouth shut.” “You’re the
opposition party,” he said. “Not
the Democratic Party. You’re the
opposition party. The media’s the
opposition party.”
This is all occurring as part of
the Trump “movement,” which
incorporates
the
populism,
nationalism
and
isolationism
once seen generations before.
America has used nationalism
to write the darker chapters of
our history. “Sea to shining sea”
required the genocide of an entire
race of people. The heroic fight
against communism allowed for
McCarthyism and the buildup of
deadly nuclear arsenals. And the
flags flying after 9/11 hid our eyes
from a government that tortured
fellow human beings.
This devotion to the star-
spangled awesomeness of America
will likely only grow because
President Trump is also proposing
a “Day of Patriotic Devotion:”
a day of common proclamation
and devotion to our country. This
new holiday relates to the section
of his inauguration speech when
he stated, “At the bedrock of our
politics will be a total allegiance to
the United States of America, and
through our loyalty to our country,
we will rediscover our loyalty to
each other.”
Many believe that 21st-century
America
would
never
allow
a fascist to emerge and abuse
power like the demagogues of
the previous century. Many of us
read only of the incomprehensible
levels of violence of wars of the
past, wondering how such people
allowed for that to happen. We’ve
been buffered from the violence of
the world and fooled with money
and easy lives into believing that it
will never happen again.
Yet we have elected a TV
celebrity
who
demonstrates
that he has an unpredictable,
scattered
and
egotistical
personality, and is vengeful to
the point of trivialness against
all his enemies. We have allowed
this man to surround himself
with sycophants and spineless
politicians who are so readily
willing to submit to his childish
will. And we have already
allowed
this
administration
to begin lying to us, to begin
utilizing the nationalism and
populism that drove its campaign
to govern the country.
President George H.W. Bush
once stated that people must
caution themselves from “suicidal
nationalism.”
He
understood
the threats posed by such blind
ideologies that promote populist
and dangerous leaders. He nearly
died fighting against a nation that
fell victim to it. And he understood
that some things were greater
than your job or your political
party. One of them was never
to bend to the will of the blind
patriotism so ingrained within
the radical ideology. And now,
in 2017, America is faced with a
presidential administration posing
similar tendencies to those of
autocratic regimes blanketed in a
love for one’s country.
T
he weekend of Jan. 21, I
attended the Women’s
March in Washington,
D.C. and was lucky enough to be
surrounded by over 500,000 like-
minded,
democratically
active
citizens. Legions of pink hats and
clever signs overtook the National
Mall in downtown Washington.
I felt empowered and powerful
in spite of the previous day’s
inauguration of our new president.
After the march had finished,
reports marveled at the lack of
arrests. While many women took
this as a sign of peacefulness and
respect, others raised concerns
about the racial implications of this
phenomenon, especially in light of
racially charged police aggression
in the recent past.
The
perception
of
“a
harmlessness
white
woman”
pervaded the march, and police
officers wearing pink pussy hats
and shouting affirmations of safety
and love at marchers were signs
of this racial bias. The successful
peacefulness of the Women’s
March is certainly positive, but
it is critical that white women
recognize the privilege we
have and apply that to our role
in activism.
A lot of march attendees took
to social media, claiming that this
event was “just the beginning”
of
modern
political
activism.
However, while many of these
injustices feel new to many of
the white women who attended
(myself
included),
feelings
of
political inequality have long been
a reality for minority communities.
The
importance
of
representational
diversity
in the realm of political and
social
activism
cannot
be
understated.
The
University
of Michigan is home to many
liberal-minded, politically active
students, but these students are
overwhelmingly white, educated
and upper-middle class. I do
not intend to shame anyone for
holding these identities, but it is
imperative, now more than ever,
to understand one’s ability and
role in activism.
Political and social activism
have historically been popular
among
white
people,
and
as a result, women of color
have been excluded from and
marginalized in various major
moments in activist history.
Many movements toward gender
equality
almost
exclusively
catered toward the ideals of
heterosexual, middle-class white
women. This dissociation led
to the creation of “womanism,”
a term coined by Alice Walker,
which focuses on issues unique
to women of color. Despite social
progress in the past few decades,
the involvement of people of color
in activism has elicited feelings
of discontent among certain
white Americans. Many white
women claim to feel threatened
by the supposed “attack on
unity” resulting from the focus
on intersectional oppression. This
has generated significant debate as
to what the purpose of protesting
should be and also the importance
of recognizing that those who
are the subjected to the deepest
injustices are not white women
(and never have been).
People of color have also raised
criticism of this being the first
instance in which so many white
women have expressed outrage,
our silence being broken now
that our rights are under attack.
Incidents of police brutality have
been circulating media outlets
for years, and yet very few white
women have participated in the
many peaceful protests that have
occurred in response to these
atrocities. Luvvie Ajayi, best-
selling author and media icon,
stated eloquently in a recent
Facebook post: “Remember that
you as a white person are walking
in a body of privilege. You didn’t
show up before but you can show
up now. NOW. When the next
Sandra Bland, Aiyana Stanley-
Jones, Rekia Boyd, Trayvon
Martin, Michael Brown, Eric
Garner etc etc etc happens, you
better come out. We will need
you to show up again and again,
in these numbers.”
While there could be any
number of excuses made for
why white women (once again,
myself included) haven’t shown
up yet, none will suffice. The
new administration has made it
clear that it will follow through
on
the
campaign
promises
of the campaign — platforms
that attack the rights of many
minority Americans.
White women, the first step
we should take is to listen and
respect the opinions of women
of color. Our voices have been
powerful
in
the
past,
and
when the time is right, we can
use our voices to empower all
marginalized identities. We can
no longer pretend it is sufficient
to post Facebook statuses and
express our concern on social
media. We can no longer turn the
other cheek to microaggressions
and daily injustice.
We can no longer avoid real
activism, as Madeline Nowicki
wrote in an op-ed for The Michigan
Daily, when she outlined some
great opportunities for action. We
must utilize our privilege to help
those without it. Activism is not
activism if you only seek change
for yourself. We are responsible for
helping to safeguard the well-being
of all Americans, especially those
who are being threatened under
this administration. And while the
challenge seems insurmountable,
that does not make it an unworthy
or hopeless cause. In the words of
Audre Lorde, “I am not free while
any woman is unfree, even when
her shackles are very different
from my own.”
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, January 30, 2017
Depoliticize Arabic studies
IBTIHAL MAKKI | OP-ED
T
he
College
of
LSA
language
requirement
asserts that, “informed
respect for other cultures (and)
tolerance … are the hallmarks
of a liberal arts education, and
the study of foreign languages
fosters
precisely
these
capacities.” In my experience,
however, these capacities are not
promoted equally by all language
departments at the University
of Michigan. Specifically, our
Arabic program, which uses the
problematic textbook, “al-Kitaab
fii Ta’allum al-Arabiyya,” which
translates to “The Book in the
Learning of Arabic” (hereafter:
“al-Kitaab,” “The Book”).
As a daughter of Lebanese
immigrants, during my 18 years
living in an Arabic-speaking
household
before
college,
I never heard either of my
parents use the Arabic term for
“United Nations.” Bearing this
in mind, imagine my confusion
as “al’umam almuttahida,” the
UN, was introduced in Lesson
One of “al-Kitaab.” Vocabulary
terms in Lesson Two included
translation,
translator,
specializing and admissions.
Lesson Three included Army,
officer
(in
an
army)
and
political science.
Lesson
10
dedicates
a
section to learning about the
non-Arab “Ayatollah,” or the
supreme leader, of Iran. The
terms for “to play,” “sports,”
“running,” “life” and “hobby”
are not introduced until Lesson
Six. Additionally, the online
companion regularly includes
Orientalist
depictions
of
Arabs, including young women
marrying older male cousins
with aspirations to be stay-at-
home moms, college students
not permitted to leave their
homes and various arranged
marriages.
The way in which languages
are taught is a reflection of
how they are perceived to be
utilized and it is inaccurate
to indicate that such terms
are more important to Arabic
communication
than
the
colors, numbers greater than
10, days of the week and
months of the year — taught in
the second, third and fourth
semesters of Arabic. Many of
these terms may seem harmless
as they stand alone. However,
in considering the context of
“The Book” as a whole, after
completing 15 credits of Arabic,
students can say “my uncle is
an army general,” but not “my
uncle has green eyes.”
Students can say, “I hope
to major in political science,
specialize
in
translation
of
Arabic news and work for
the UN” but not, “I hope to
write poetry.” As a University
that is proactively promoting
inclusivity and understanding
through the plan for Diversity,
Equity & Inclusion, it should not
be acceptable to use a book that
teaches the word for “oil” before
the verb “to think.”
Teaching Arabic through this
blatantly politically charged lens
has problematic educational and
social implications, necessitating
analysis
and
constructive
criticism.
If
the
University
regards
second
language
acquisition as providing “deep
awareness of linguistic and
cultural
differences
and
a
means to bridge them,” as is
stated on the LSA website,
then it is the responsibility of
our language departments to
uphold that vision. Utilizing
a
textbook
that
prioritizes
politicized
vocabulary
only
serves to perpetuate negative
generalizations
about
Arab
culture and does not portray an
accurate representation of my
culture, my family or myself. This
concern is further exacerbated
when considering that Arabic
101 may be many students’
first formal introduction to the
language and culture and, as
such, they may be less equipped
to recognize these biases and
divorce them from reality.
The dominant traits inherent
to
Arab
culture
—
which
emphasizes
hospitality
and
generosity, cherishes family and
food and appreciates literature
and music — should not be
lost to the global discourses
that have undoubtedly been
restricted to conflicts, politics
and security. I am not oblivious
to the fact that many students
enroll in Arabic classes in
pursuit of relevant professions
at the UN, Department of
State and any other number of
synonymous assemblies. The
questions
remain,
however:
Why does the Arabic program
cater to these students, and why
am I automatically subjected to
this framework?
It would be more appropriate
for the Department of Near
Eastern Studies to adopt a
different textbook and create
a separate, advanced class for
students proficient in Arabic
who wish to expand their
political vocabulary. I am aware
that the majority of American
universities
use
“al-Kitaab,
“as the grammar lessons are
effective. However, if this book
is recognized as problematic and
enabling harmful stereotypes,
then
the
University
should
search for a better book — or
write one.
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Ibtihal Makki is an LSA senior.
Using your privilege for good
MEGAN BURNS | COLUMN
Fascism in American politics
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
Michael Mordarski can be reached
at mmordars@umich.edu.
Megan Burns can be reached at
megburns@umich.edu.
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
IBTIHAL MAKKI
MEGAN BURNS
ERIN WAKELAND | CONTACT ERIN AT ERINRAY@UMICH.EDU
MASS MEETING — MONDAY, JANUARY 30 at 7PM
Join us in our newsroom at 420 Maynard St. to learn how you can
become a part of the Opinion section as a writer and/or Editorial Board
member. Contact opinion@michigandaily.com for more information.