Home | About | Donate

US Politicians’ Racist Anti-Iranian Remarks Don’t Make Headlines


#1

US Politicians’ Racist Anti-Iranian Remarks Don’t Make Headlines

Ben Norton

Imagine a US senator publicly calling the Chinese “evil people.” Imagine a governor saying African leaders are “animals.” Imagine a presidential candidate claiming Latinos are “liars.” In each of these cases, the media would rightfully explode, condemning the politicians for their overt racism.


#2

"To be clear, there is certainly no dearth of critiques to be made of the Iranian government. It greatly represses progressive activists, labor organizers and women protesting sexist laws."

Well, Mr. Ben Norton, those very same comments could be directed at the very least at one of the two parts of the US duopoly. No revision even necessary. And more truthfully, since our masters own the duopoly as a whole, and they are opposed to progressive causes, labor organization, and laws promoting gender equality, those remarks characterize our professional political class as a whole.

I would also say that, considering all of the hateful things done to Iran by the US and the UK, and all that they have been threatened with in the last 20 or so years, that the Revolutionary Republic of Iran has acted with great restraint and dexterity.

I would also like to direct an insult at the Saudis and all of the other Sunni sheikdoms in that sorry-assed part of the world. An insult that they can truly understand and fume about: all of you Princes, Kings, and Sheiks are all women - weak, cowardly, frightened women. You have to hide behind the cover of the US to keep from competing with Iran on an even playing field. You're afraid that the Iranians will eat your lunch, and maybe they will. They have certainly survived under great duress while all of you pampered and perfumed princes can' t even manage with all of the lavish military and money gifts from Uncle Sugar Daddy. Dogs have more dignity than you have.

I am not a sexist and don't regard women as weak, cowardly, or frightened. But in the paternalistic backward societies of the Sheikdoms they will certainly understand that insult.


#3

I would hope that if your disclaimer is true, you would do all you could to raise the level of discourse and civility and not stoop to the level of the insults of a type similar to that which the article was pointing out.


#4

"At this point, they claim, we should simply expect conservatives to make absurd remarks."

As a long time critic of conservatives, I always expect them to make absurd remarks. I'm interested in knowing why if conservative are almost always wrong, they prevail in government and industry?

Liberals always win in the end, so why not skip conservative rule altogether?


#6

Yet the (ideal) job of the journalist is not to make us accustomed to the status quo; it is to hold authorities to task, to check power, to inform the public when leaders are engaging in problematic behavior.

Such idealism is okay in terms of thinking what is possible but not for understanding the status quo. The real job of the journalist is like any other... earning a buck by doing what is expected of him.

That's why the greatest insights on CDs are from the posters!
(Wow - I'm asking to be beheaded, methinks).


#7

Everything I learned about Iranians, I learned by teaching school (including some Iranian kids whose parents were students here). This was as an adult, educated person, not as a kid in a pool hall who'd never met an Iranian. I'd beat any kid/ student senseless, let alone a U.S. senator (not permitted literally, I know) for make such an ignorant, blanket statement. I suspect that the late seventies hostage crisis, and an Ayatollah or two with the same limited common sense as the senator, are to blame for continuing animosity toward Iran, rather than...say...Saudi Arabia.


#8

This is a disgusting and sexist critique. Are you aware of that? You are attempting to insult men by calling them women as if being a woman IS an insult. Furthermore, you are equating courage and bravery with maleness.

So while you appear to take gender relations seriously by suggesting that our own nation ignores gender equality (and that is largely true), you then push a frame that would be apropos to the most insecure guy hurling insults at another rival in a men's locker room.

Then, after doing the deed, you suggest that it didn't mean what it clearly does mean:

"I am not a sexist and don't regard women as weak, cowardly, or frightened. But in the paternalistic backward societies of the Sheikdoms they will certainly understand that insult."

This is a dishonest post if not a form of contorted disinformation. Just disgusting.


#9

I've read enough composition papers, material by Bernays, Frank Luntz, and George Lakoff to recognize planned and thus artificial talking points.

In this forum, that type of messaging stands out to me. Suppose the subject is Charter Schools and an article does a brilliant job of demonstrating their false claims to improved education outcomes.

Invariably, some paid dunce will show up to say that they know of ONE charter school or ONE charter school student who did quite well.

People latch onto stories about individuals. They identify with these persons and stories. It's also been shown through studies in human behavior (and lots of media tested audience pools) that these "single subject stories" leave a stronger impression and imprint than do informed articles full of statistics.

The "Iranians in the bar shtick" was probably a made-up item. It fits the idea of "the personal example" used to refute the larger witness of FACTS.

And it's tolerated because the U.S. media is beholden to the make-war machine, and Iran is still on its list of Terror Nations. Without enemies propped up (and constantly pumped up... into that status) the gargantuan monies siphoned into military exploits could never be rationalized. As it is, with Austerity heading to more and more U.S. cities, more persons are recognizing that these wars abroad rape the treasury here at home.

That's why they are gravitating towards Bernie Sanders; and for the brain-dead, what to them is a maverick in the form of bad boy, rich guy Trump.


#10

Lindsay Graham is a bottom feeder and should be dismissed from the senate as a lunatic


#11

The bible thumping, religious hypocrite, Huckabee is the blind leading the blind. Too bad there are so many politically, blind people in the Fourth Reich. Huck would have made Goebbels proud if he had lived in the Third Reich.


#12

Your criticism of my comment was absolutely on the mark. It was an unguarded statement resulting from intense frustration. What made it absolutely stupid is that those that it was directed against (the Saudi royalty) will never read it. For those who were offended by it I don't know if anything I could ever say going forward would undo the impression of myself I have thus created. Such is the lesson of the internet, which I forgot. The other posted reply that it serves no good purpose to escalate the confrontational rhetoric, was also on the mark and well-deserved.

I am not now replying, so many days after the fact, to try to somehow sneak this apology in under other's radar. My internet habits are not regular and I just now saw your reply in my e-mail. Not trying to excuse my preposterous remark, it emanated from my intense frustration and anguish that we are once again being driven into more disastrous war, a concern I know, despite our differences, we both share.