Removing a person’s humanity is an essential step to persecution. Human nature resists harming another, but when we refer to large numbers of people in terms that collect them in specific groups (nationalities, races, ethnicities, sports teams, etc.) then it is easier to project feelings of hatred. This act reduces an individual by focusing on one aspect of his or her being. It is easier to hate a single thing than it is to feel this way about the complexities and contradictions of a person.
As polls have consistently shown him as popular among likely Republican primary voters, Donald Trump has added many quotable moments to the election dialog. Perhaps the greatest contribution is that his declarations have pushed the subject of immigration into a prominent place. For many people living in the United States this is the single most important topic that will influence their vote. There are those who feel that anyone in the country without proper authorization should be deported and, on the other extreme, are people who feel that it would be best if an amnesty were declared that granted citizenship. Between these positions are numerous combinations of ideas, projects, and postures that generate a profusion of possible solutions. The only place where agreement is reached is that the status quo is unacceptable. However, ironically, as political consensus continues to be elusive, it is precisely business as usual that remains year after year.
In the void left by this long period of inaction, it is not uncommon to hear voices that cluster immigrants into a single group. These voices are not projecting hatred, but instead seek a shorthand that enables discussion of a problem. For example, a recent article profiling Trump’s supporters in Iowa included this quote:
As polls have consistently shown him as popular among likely Republican primary voters, Donald Trump has added many quotable moments to the election dialog. Perhaps the greatest contribution is that his declarations have pushed the subject of immigration into a prominent place. For many people living in the United States this is the single most important topic that will influence their vote. There are those who feel that anyone in the country without proper authorization should be deported and, on the other extreme, are people who feel that it would be best if an amnesty were declared that granted citizenship. Between these positions are numerous combinations of ideas, projects, and postures that generate a profusion of possible solutions. The only place where agreement is reached is that the status quo is unacceptable. However, ironically, as political consensus continues to be elusive, it is precisely business as usual that remains year after year.
In the void left by this long period of inaction, it is not uncommon to hear voices that cluster immigrants into a single group. These voices are not projecting hatred, but instead seek a shorthand that enables discussion of a problem. For example, a recent article profiling Trump’s supporters in Iowa included this quote:
Forty-seven percent say it's a good idea to gather up an estimated 11 million immigrants who are in the United States illegally and send them to their home country
This use of “11 million” as a substitution for the diverse individuals who make up this population is, at once, comprehensible while also open to criticism. It is language that makes it possible to discuss the subject. However, at the same time, it reduces these people to just one aspect of their being; they are no longer individuals with pasts, families, love, and humanity. Instead they are just “immigrants” who are in the US “illegally”.
The problem with such reductive abbreviation is that it leaves ambiguous space. This is attractive to politicians because people will often fill the ambiguous spaces with what they would like to see. This is where hate has the space to become part of the conversation. As Trump uses words like “rapists” to refer to Mexicans who come to the US, established racists hear attractive soundbites. This is what Evan Osnos discovered when reading The Daily Stormer, “America’s most popular neo-Nazi news site”. It was there that Osnos saw the potential ambiguity of Trump's words transform into something more: "Turmp is willing to say what most Americans think: it's time to deport these people". With this in mind, The Daily Stormer urged white men to vote Trump because he "actually represents our interests". While Trump might want to disassociate himself from this type of support, another editor of a white-nationalist magazine, American Renaissance, pointed out that the candidate "would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me that he might like to admit". (all of these quotes are from Osnos's excellent New Yorker article)
It is indeed correct that Trump disassociated himself when two men in Boston, evoking the candidate's position on immigrants, urinated on a homeless Mexican man after attacking him with a metal pipe. Police quoted the men as saying "Donald Trump was right [...] All these illegals need to be deported". CNN reported that the victim actually had a social security number, a fact that points to him not being undocumented. However, it seems that details and complexities (a Mexican with a Social Security number sleeping on the street in a US city!) are unimportant when a person's humanity is reduced to a thing upon which hate is easily heaped.
Politicians work hard to create language that says little and suggests much. Trading votes on that speech for the reduction of someone else's humanity is cowardly. The immigration system in the US is not working, but cheap political points scored off the most vulnerable will not bring a solution. Our country is braver than this.
The problem with such reductive abbreviation is that it leaves ambiguous space. This is attractive to politicians because people will often fill the ambiguous spaces with what they would like to see. This is where hate has the space to become part of the conversation. As Trump uses words like “rapists” to refer to Mexicans who come to the US, established racists hear attractive soundbites. This is what Evan Osnos discovered when reading The Daily Stormer, “America’s most popular neo-Nazi news site”. It was there that Osnos saw the potential ambiguity of Trump's words transform into something more: "Turmp is willing to say what most Americans think: it's time to deport these people". With this in mind, The Daily Stormer urged white men to vote Trump because he "actually represents our interests". While Trump might want to disassociate himself from this type of support, another editor of a white-nationalist magazine, American Renaissance, pointed out that the candidate "would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me that he might like to admit". (all of these quotes are from Osnos's excellent New Yorker article)
It is indeed correct that Trump disassociated himself when two men in Boston, evoking the candidate's position on immigrants, urinated on a homeless Mexican man after attacking him with a metal pipe. Police quoted the men as saying "Donald Trump was right [...] All these illegals need to be deported". CNN reported that the victim actually had a social security number, a fact that points to him not being undocumented. However, it seems that details and complexities (a Mexican with a Social Security number sleeping on the street in a US city!) are unimportant when a person's humanity is reduced to a thing upon which hate is easily heaped.
Politicians work hard to create language that says little and suggests much. Trading votes on that speech for the reduction of someone else's humanity is cowardly. The immigration system in the US is not working, but cheap political points scored off the most vulnerable will not bring a solution. Our country is braver than this.
