Bad Harambes
Trump’s commentary on bad hombres crossing the border was heard round the world. It was talked about by any and all respectable news sources that call themselves so. The internet had a field day with it, going on endlessly about how offensive those words actually are or aren’t. But it hardly seems like the worst thing Trump has said. In fact, I believe it is the ambiguous tameness of the phrase that actually makes it more controversial. Had he been spouting racial slurs left and right with the intent to offend as many minorities as possible, it would have still made headlines (obviously), but it wouldn’t have been so hotly debated. “Bad hombres” is harmful enough to be deemed offensive by a vast portion of the population, but not harmful enough that the rest of them wont strike back and defend their candidate.
Watching the post-debate discussions taking place in various news shows, it was hard not to notice that the room was always split between Trump’s supporters and his detractors, regardless of what they were talking about. When they reached his bad hombres quip, they were unsurprisingly vehemently attacking his word choice or casually saying it really wasn’t offensive (“It’s not like he said the n-word” one of his supporters said to his awestruck African American co-host). Downplaying Trump’s every offense seems to be the go-to strategy of the average Trump supporter, as was evidenced in the post-post-debate discussion my friends and I had later that night.
Almost everyone agreed that his comment wasn’t politically correct and could have been worded more appropriately, but some argued that it really didn’t make a difference and that it was being blown up for no reason. While the accentuation of “otherness” is hardly something I’d consider unimportant, it was hard to argue that his view on Mexican immigrants alienated any large voter demographic. Trump supporters had no problem defending him and those that were already against him probably weren’t on the fence about switching sides. In fact, Trump is so polarizing that it’s hard to imagine what people on the fence are like, or if there is a “fence” to be on at all. That’s what makes his ambiguously controversial comments so widely discussed, its easy to be on either side and hard to be neither. They further the gap between the two groups and provide the perfect starting point for the conversation on any given political subject. For the next couple of weeks, it’ll be hard to discuss immigration in the United States without referencing Trump’s Bad Hombres (thereby perpetuating the stereotype of the mustache-twirling villainous Mexicans, either in a positive or negative light). Trump has placed himself firmly in the centerpiece of political conversations, as per usual, and this influence means more each passing day as November draws nearer.
When Trump made his "Bad Hombres" quip at the debate, my jaw immediately dropped. I thought it was going to be over for him -- for anyone making the claim still that Trump wasn't racist or hateful towards Mexicans, this was going to seal the deal. Later, I wondered why I felt this way. Many people refuting its negative connotations argued "Well it's the Spanish word for man, isn't it?" "Well the people bringing in drugs are bad, aren't they? And they're Mexican, are they not?"
ReplyDeleteIt is this kind of logic that Trump uses to slip out of every implicitly bigoted comment he makes. The fact of the matter is unspoken. While it wasn't stated, Trump was using his preexisting biases of "all Mexican men being criminals" to feed the belief that we need to build a wall to keep all of them. There is never a minute Trump spends to distinguish between good and bad within a minority or ethnicity line. There are never "some", or a "few," or an "increase in security" the Trump supports. Only that there are a lot, that it is an epidemic, and great lengths need to be taken to address the drugs that are killing American children. It's fear mongering at its finest.
Also, what's up with your title.
It was pretty ridiculous when Trump did make his "Bad Hombres" comment. I think that statement had solidified the racism imbedded in Trump, as well as the stupidity in the Republican Party. I seriously thought that this would have painted the entire picture enough for his endorsers and supporters to think "this is just too much".
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how his supporters continue to support him and it seems as though all these stories that have been arising as of lately about trump have not created enough negative backlash. It's essentially just fed the notion of, "he's not a politician and he isn't polished, he keeps it real" kind of mentality.
I wonder if it's their stupidity or if they really believe that.
"Bad hombres" is just another example of something that would ruin any normal political candidate. But for Trump it's run of the mill. I think it's fascinating that sexual assault scandal (something that has plagued hundreds of politicians) will be the thing to destroy Trump, when all of his outrageous stunts rendered him invincible. Most of the stuff Trump does or says would never be permissible in traditional political discourse. But we are in uncharted territory.
ReplyDeleteTrump using 'Bad Hombres' is once again, a testament to his irrationality and ignorance. I honestly do not understand how he can get away with the things he says and remain a viable (very loosely) candidate in this election. It's disappointing and shameful that someone who is running for president can run his mouth this much and still have an incredibly large voter base. My question is: What enables Trump to get away with all this constant bigotry and idiocy?
ReplyDeleteWho on earth fed him that line?? You're right, it's less offensive than it is ridiculous. The contortionist bending-over-backwards Trump surrogates had to do in these situations was altogether applaudable, like elephants balancing on basketballs in a circus. So mortifying that, once again, we can't force ourselves to look away and focus on the broader implications of such a statement...well, sure we can, but what can we hash out that we haven't already? Trump's word choice hardly ceases to leave us taken aback, but the bottom line of his racism and xenophobia is year-long old news. How could we possibly resuscitate the conversation?
ReplyDeleteWhile I am vehemently upset with the racist undertones, what I am more upset about is how this sort of casual reference to any issue downplays its importance and boils it into a black and white conversation. Such a basist line serves only as an emotional instigator, like you say "us vs. them" but I think the bigger danger is the way that Trump will be diffusing the significance of highly intricate issues. Even something like shutting Guantanamo Bay has been a highly discussed issue for Obama with hours of time spent breaking down the complex issue. Yet Trump can shut down the very necessary discussion of any argument with these politically incorrect comments. It isn't just a danger for the racism that is legitimizes, but the demolition of a national discourse we so desperately need.
ReplyDeleteI think you make an excellent observation when you show how the "bad hombres" comment allows people to make Trump voters rationalize their support for the orange man. Though, for any other presidential candidate, a comment like this would be the end of their campaign, for Trump, this comment energizes his voter base. This is the best exemplification of the Trump phenomenon--a racist comment that bolsters his campaign.
ReplyDeleteI know I keep coming back to this, but I think it is crucial. If we are to defeat Trump, we have to emphasize the racism of Trump's comments AND offer an alternative. If we don't, people are bound to fall into Trumpism.