Tag Archives: bigotry

Geronimo Is Not bin Laden

Laurie and Debbie say:

If you aren’t living under a rock somewhere, you know that the United States’ government’s operation which succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden was code-named Geronimo. As you probably also know, Geronimo is not just a cool-sounding word that a kid says when her sled barrels down the hill. Geronimo was a heroic Native American (Chiricahua Apache) leader who fought against the United States in an attempt to preserve Apache lands.

Indian Country Today Media Network published an excellent interview with Jeff Houser, Fort Sill Apache Tribe Chairman, who has asked President Obama to issue a formal apology for connecting Geronimo’s name to the most hated man of the 21st century.

[Tuesday] I was looking at the local paper and the headline said, “Relentless: How U.S. Brought Justice to Bin Laden’s Doorstep.” And there was a little quote that says the Seals killed Bin Laden with a bullet to the head using the code that Geronimo had been killed in action. I thought, “Geronimo”?

I think it was something done without a whole lot of thought as to how it would be represented to most of the Indian community. So often we’re not really thought of, we’re not really considered, so I think it was just another example of that. But this is the second time this year that the federal government has referenced Native people as similar to al Qaeda. There was a filing in federal court that compared the Seminoles to al Qaeda.

[If President Obama doesn’t apologize], then he misses an opportunity to really show Native people that he understands our struggles. So often tribes struggle and so this would just be another in the long line of problems we’ve faced and any number of things that have arisen over and over again. So if nothing comes of it, I wouldn’t really be surprised and I wouldn’t really be upset, but I’d be disappointed.

I’m very thankful for the response throughout Indian county and hope that at the very least this does provide an opportunity for tribal leaders to speak with a unified voice. For us (Geronimo’s tribe, the Chiricahua Apaches), having been imprisoned and referred to as enemies and savage and violent people and walked away from for nearly 30 years to have this association return is painful and I hope the collective response of Natives around the country and around the world will show that it’s not the appropriate thing to do. Our tribe was a prisoner of war with Geronimo. Unlike bin Laden, Geronimo didn’t resist; he willingly surrendered, relying on the promise of the American to return to his homeland in two years, and we’re still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled.

Neither of us expects Obama to apologize either, although of course he should.

Racial, religious, and ethnic terms slip all-too-easily into the language, in ways that let people who use them pretend (and even sometimes believe) that the terms don’t have their own history. These terms can be slurs, or complex cultural concepts, or names of heroes (or anything in between). It’s easy to say, “You’re behaving like a Jewish mother” without realizing that you’re feeding anti-Semitism. It’s easy to say, “Oh, those children were stolen by gypsies” without realizing that you’re categorizing an entire population as thieves, especially if you don’t know anyone that you know is Romany. It’s easy to say “Keep your cotton-picking hands off me” without thinking either about the hard labor of picking cotton or the “horny, calloused (and usually black) hands that picked cotton.” It’s easy to use the code name “Geronimo” for bin Laden without thinking about what you’re implying about the real Geronimo.

People who would never use the known ethnic slurs use terms like “gypped” and “Jewish princess” much more freely. We’re very appreciative of Jeff Hauser (and the unified Indian country reaction behind him) for calling for the apology. Calling out these underlying meanings regularly and clearly is the only chance we have to restore the history and change the language.

France Is Banning the Niqab for the Worst Reasons

Debbie says:

Now that the French Senate, as well as the lower house, has voted to ban the niqab, and French president Sarkozy will surely sign it into law, it’s a good time to point out Chiara’s very strong post at Chez Chiara on the political background of the niqab ban. The niqab is the full face veil worn by some Muslim women, where only their eyes show. By next month, it will almost certainly be illegal in France, and local jurisdictions are already fining women who wear it.

While France has a long tradition of laicit&#233 (which is not quite the same as our “secularism”) the ban on the niqab stems at least as much from far-right persecution of Muslims, for which the French invoke both the medieval history of the crusades and the 20th century history of the Nazis (apparently some French people have forgotten that their grandparents were victims of the Nazis).

a halal (religious Islamic bakery) in Lisieux, France with Islamic hatred slogans and a Nazi swastika painted on the wall

Here’s Chiara:

It is important to be clear–about what is being proposed, by whom, and why, in the French context specifically–before jumping on the French “Ban the Burqa” bandwagon. This ban is against wearing the face veil any time anywhere in public–not just in public institutions, banks, government offices, or police stations, but walking down the street, going to the neighbourhood park, window shopping, giving the baby a stroll, taking out the garbage, anywhere. Transgressors are subject to fines, and then further legal penalties.

The ban was originally proposed last June 2009 by President Nicholas Sarkozy. From the right to the left, all pundits and politicians consulted by their supporting newspapers then stated that this was an election ploy on his part to garner votes from the far right in order to assure his own (more centre right) re-election, and a majority Parliament, which would then include a Prime Minister on the right as well.

This manoeuvre of course makes Sarkozy more beholden to the far right who have a clear agenda against immigrants, Muslims, Arabs and Africans; and, think they should all be “sent home”, even though by now Maghrebi immigrants recruited in the 50’s and 60’s (government planes were sent to villages in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, to hire labourers for France by the plane-full) have 2nd and 3rd generation descendants. They also believe that children born in France to Arab/African-French citizens have no right to French citizenship.

This, of course, mirrors far-right hatred of Islam in the United States and the rest of the western world, although it takes its own shape in every country.

It’s very common for Western feminists to have complicated reactions to the niqab and other forms of religious headscarf. It’s a complicated question. Here’s how I feel:

1) Many women wear the Islamic veil out of their own examined choices and their own beliefs. While some women may be forced into modest dress by a patriarchal society, there’s no way to tell by looking at a woman what her motivations are, and it’s not my (or your) business to try. The right to choose one’s own clothing extends to the right to choose religious clothing–although France has issues with crosses and Jewish yarmulkes, along with headscarves, nonetheless the freedom to observe one’s religion is a key freedom and should be supported everywhere.

2) Extremist hatred of Islam (and all hatred of Islam), like any other kind of bigotry, cannot be tolerated by our governments, let alone supported. Just as we in the U.S. must work to get past vile concepts like “anchor babies” and the completely inaccurately described “Ground Zero mosque,” the French also have obligations to each other. When hatred is allowed to thrive, everyone is in danger. Sarkozy is allowing himself to get in bed with hatred, and you always wake up changed when you do that.

3) Because Muslim women dress in ways that visibly mark their religion more frequently than Muslim men do, this ban unfairly targets women and young girls and is, in and of itself, a sexist law.

No one in the U.S. should be patting ourselves on the back about this one; it’s worth looking at from here as a cautionary tale, not as grounds for superiority.

Thanks to delux_vivens for the pointer.