Letters to the Editor
Sandy Yago
Published Letters: 115 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Little black cloud to Mr Cole!
[Read the article: Obama should be proud to be named Hussein]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]O what a marvelous article! Since the little Red Star already serves other purposes, Salon should use a little black cloud to mark articles like this excelling in obfuscation.
Firtst, the breathtaking statement that Hussein is a blessed American name. Nimbly, as the reader is still reeling from this early left hook, Mr Cole quickly rebrands the name as "Semitic". A one-two punch in the first ten seconds.
Never mind that the only reason why Hussein as a middle name for a prospective American preident has any significance in the here and now is that it evokes assocations to islamic terrorism. I'm sure Mr Cole understands that a significant segment of the US population (not the average Saloneer, of course) is concerned about Islamic terrorism. But whoever heard of Semitic terrorism?
What the name itself means and all that fancy other details the article enumerates are surely interesting, but focusing on them does not address the basic issue. Clearly, that is the goal here. This copious flow of details leads to the second method of obfuscation, the spiraling of the goalpost into nebulous outer space by discussions about Arabs being forced to convert to Catholicism 500 years ago in Spain or "great Americans like Rihanna".
(I must admit, I had to look up Great American Rihanna. The result was alone worth having to plough thru this article!)
This tactic emulates the standard Muslim response to Christian criticism: "But the Crusades!" "But we know the number zero when you were burning witches!"
Anything goes as far as throwing in cognitive spoilers are concerned. Mr Cole emphasizes that Obama's middle name honors a secular Muslim grandfather. What would it prove or disprove, considering that Obama claims to be a devout Christian? Many present day blacks in America may have ancestors 10 generations ago whose name was Hussein. Yes, 10 generations ago, quoth he! How it that relevant today? Gibbon was touched by the prophet Mohammed's grandson. ("Prophet" Mohammed? - only the PBUH missing). Omar Bradley in WW2. The goalpost has took a time travel into the past.
The only truly relevant remarks are about people in today's world events. Mr Cole could have said "And what about General Abizaid? Gotta problem with it?" That alone would have shown how spurious the topic is on its face value. But then there is no Salon article, fame, fortune, women and court appointments.
At any rate, it is towards the end when one is forced to appreciate the clever subtlety of introducing the term "Semitic". A Jewish name is brought up as the article winds down, yes the Jews, just another typical bunch of folks from the big, brotherly association of Semites. Ben Franklin, so blessedly American, would you really hate him for his Semitic name? Heck, he could have been easily called Hussein and still be blessedly American!
And, as we are in America, of course, of course, the topic gets also framed into the tried and true racism context, giving it the coup de grace in its struggle to be discussed with a cool head. And when racism is being alleged, has there ever existed a good leftie who would not drag Bush or Rove (or whatever the rightwinger bogeyman of the day is) into the discussion? The indispensable "argument by Bush?" No Sir. No Ma'am.
While on the face value the topic is spurious, there is a good reason why the debate about it is raging on. It is gutter politics, with eyes on the prize. On the right people can insinuate that Obama has terrorist connections without saying it, on a "honi soit qui mal y pence" basis. On the left people can defend Obama, with articles like these for instance, without having to bother with checking out facts, simply by doing their usual "racist right winger" routine.
Meanwhile the question is not entirely academic, considering Obama's apparently cozy relationship with Ayres, a former Weather Undergrounder.