Palmer Events Center
Desperate Bush
RECEIVED Wed., May 5, 2004
Dear Editor,
I just read that Bush, in his desperation, is accusing nonsupporters of the Iraq debacle of being "racist" – "Just because they might not have the same skin color as us doesn't mean they can't govern themselves." First, I sincerely doubt there are many people who don't think Democratic self-rule is feasible in Iraq at this point because of "the color of [Iraqis'] skin." Because of the administration's grave mistakes, yes, but not because of skin color. Second, anyone who reduces the difference between radically different cultures to "the color of their skin" is incredibly naive. The "color of their skin" explanation is a common tactic kindergarten teachers use to explain race differences. By high school, children generally learn that cultural differences involve differences in history, religion, economic circumstances, and ideology, to start. You'd think, what with the stellar high school grades W. must have gotten to get into Yale, not to mention the excellent education he must have gotten at Yale to earn a low C average (and, oh yeah, the fact that he's the president of the United States), that he would have some grasp of the complexities of culture and race.
Even more unbelievable is the phrase "the same skin color as us." What does he mean by "us" and not having "the same skin color as us"? Let's put aside the incorrect grammar and consider what he could possibly have meant:
1) He thinks all Americans are white.
2) He doesn't consider the U.S. citizens of non-European descent to be real Americans, and thus they're not included as part of "us."
3) In his speeches he's only talking to white people.
4) He thinks only white people are capable of being racist.
5) He thinks he's flattering nonwhites by intimating that their skin color is not in fact different from "ours" (whites).
I know that some of these possibilities may seem far-fetched or unbelievable. On the other hand, wouldn't we have formerly thought that what's going on in our government, our country, and in the world was unbelievable before it actually happened? How many times does the unbelievable have to become reality before "unbelievable" loses its meaning?
I just read that Bush, in his desperation, is accusing nonsupporters of the Iraq debacle of being "racist" – "Just because they might not have the same skin color as us doesn't mean they can't govern themselves." First, I sincerely doubt there are many people who don't think Democratic self-rule is feasible in Iraq at this point because of "the color of [Iraqis'] skin." Because of the administration's grave mistakes, yes, but not because of skin color. Second, anyone who reduces the difference between radically different cultures to "the color of their skin" is incredibly naive. The "color of their skin" explanation is a common tactic kindergarten teachers use to explain race differences. By high school, children generally learn that cultural differences involve differences in history, religion, economic circumstances, and ideology, to start. You'd think, what with the stellar high school grades W. must have gotten to get into Yale, not to mention the excellent education he must have gotten at Yale to earn a low C average (and, oh yeah, the fact that he's the president of the United States), that he would have some grasp of the complexities of culture and race.
Even more unbelievable is the phrase "the same skin color as us." What does he mean by "us" and not having "the same skin color as us"? Let's put aside the incorrect grammar and consider what he could possibly have meant:
1) He thinks all Americans are white.
2) He doesn't consider the U.S. citizens of non-European descent to be real Americans, and thus they're not included as part of "us."
3) In his speeches he's only talking to white people.
4) He thinks only white people are capable of being racist.
5) He thinks he's flattering nonwhites by intimating that their skin color is not in fact different from "ours" (whites).
I know that some of these possibilities may seem far-fetched or unbelievable. On the other hand, wouldn't we have formerly thought that what's going on in our government, our country, and in the world was unbelievable before it actually happened? How many times does the unbelievable have to become reality before "unbelievable" loses its meaning?
Cheryl Browne
