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.