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.

