I begin to think we need a term for "terrorism of ideas"

[jducoeur]

The news setting me off today is this idiotic story, which is appearing all over. Basically, the latest Rachel Ray online ad for Dunkin Donuts has her appearing in a scarf, which happens to look like a Muslim kaffiyeh. A couple of loudmouth right-wing commentators jumped all over it, declaring that it shows that Dunkin Donuts are subtly declaring their support for terrorists. Even if you are unfond of Rachel Ray herself (I know some of my friends don't much like her work), you have to admit that this particular tempest in a teapot goes beyond the pale.

In this case, it's the right wing in an idiotic lather, but I can't say that the left have covered themselves in any glory in this respect. It's yet another example of political correctness carried through to its ridiculous extreme -- where every move, every word, every image is scrutinized, deconstructed and imputed to have Deep And Horrible Significance. The authors of the error are pilloried in the public marketplace. If they are smart, they issue a fast retraction and run like hell; if they simply tell the truth (that no such insult was intended), the whole thing is generally turned into a huge fireball far beyond any good sense.

(I should note that I'm kind of gut-level annoyed at Dunkin Donuts for pulling the ad. On a lot of levels, the right-wing outrage is pretty damned outrageous itself: not just in that they've made a fashion statement into a political one, but in the implicit insult to Muslims. But I have to sympathize with the company: they *weren't* making any kind of political statement, and it's not particularly good business for them to allow it to turn into one, so getting the hell away from the whole thing is the intelligent move.)

But it does drive home my basic point. I don't use the terrorism analogy lightly. In both cases, the idea is to take some unobvious location full of civilians, and turn it into a battleground. In both cases, it's innocent bystanders, who had no intention of being on the front lines of the war, who wind up the casualties. And in both cases, it's the act of little, pitiful people who aren't really committing these acts because they are trying to change minds -- rather, they are trying to say "We Hold Power Over You" with as much flash and violence as possible.

It's a repulsive tactic, regardless of which side of the political spectrum is motivating it, and it deserves scorn and ridicule. (I haven't checked yet, but I dearly hope Mark Fiore comes up with a good cartoon on this one.) I can only think of one good thing to come out of this mess -- the next time the right wing claims that foolish political correctness is the exclusive province of the left, we can throw this one in their faces. And the left gets a fine example of what it looks like from the other side. Maybe now that both sides are doing it, it'll help everyone understand what a bad idea it is...

Comments

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

What, like we didn't already have a host of examples of ridiculous right-wing PC? Freedom Fries?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I am unable to tell the words of Michelle Malkin (generally speaking) from hate-speech.

She's just very lucky that she didn't reach her pinacle during the Vietnam Era, or some levantine bikini-babe from the right-wing, who shares her standards for reportage, might call her a slanty-eyed gook. (Yes, she is native born, with long family ties to the US, and she is Filipino - but the scarf was paisley. She does not operate where facts matter.)

No: seriously. That's the level she operates at. Hate speech.

I honestly pay it no mind. She searches for headlines, not for useful information. I'm sorry that Dunks got slammed by her, but what it shows is how stupid we ALL are. We should ignore her and her prattle, and her fans.

[corwyn-ap.livejournal.com]

Can that term please not involve the word 'terrorism'?

Thanks.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

It surely is stupid. On the other hand, speaking as a fiber geek, the scarf does look fairly close to a kaffiyeh, even though it is not. To someone willing to take offense at the slightest thing, there is plenty of fodder there.

The real problem, of course, are the people looking to be offended, and those have been with us for quite a while. I do not know what to do about them.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

I agree, it does have a fair, if presumably accidental, resemblance. While the paranoid overreaction to something harmless bothers me,* it is actually the correlation of Arabs and terrorists that I find most disturbing. Have we really regressed to the level of jingoism where scary foreigners (non-Christians automatically being un-American, of course) are all plotting against us? It's bad enough to see that from isolated individuals, but the argument should hold no weight at all under public scrutiny.

I can't precisely blame Dunkin' Donuts for their response, but I would certainly respect them a lot more if they instead issued a press release saying the accusations were ridiculous and insulting.

*(This hyper-reaction to, say, any minor turn of phrase has been a gradually mounting problem in our politics for a while - witness the Democratic nomination race...)

[tafkad.livejournal.com]

Have we really regressed to the level of jingoism where scary foreigners (non-Christians automatically being un-American, of course) are all plotting against us?

Yes.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Maybe the word we're looking for is offensensitivity.

[sephiaowl.livejournal.com]

oy... just oy.

First of all, while the scarf may be about the right color, it is not a kaffiyeh. Secondly, even if it was, so what? The Kaffiyeh has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with terrorism. Whoever started this whole scandal needs to go find something meaningful to do instead of wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

[tafkad.livejournal.com]

Oh, Hell. Kaffiyahs were even in fashion during the late 80s/early 90s in the Washington, DC area. They were sold at street stands like any other scarf or headwear.

I'm sick of the nonsense notion that all people of Arab/Palestinian/Persian descent are a borg of terrorists. This story about the ads is the latest bit of stupidity. The most recent one I heard before it was during the West Virginia Democratic primary. Interviewed voters said they voted for Hillary because Obama was Muslim, and they didn't need a terrorist in the White House.

I kid you not.

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I saw that moronic woman interviewed on TV, saying she was [accent = Hazard County] "tahred o' awl them Hoos-synes, and Ah don' want no Hoos-syne" [/accent] for President.

[serakit.livejournal.com]

A few years ago, my grandfather brought my mother a scarf from Spain or Morocco. I borrowed it frequently. It was long enough that I liked to wrap it around my head in place of a hat. I was then forbidden to do this because people might think I was making fun of Muslims. So scarf incidents don't really surprise me that much anymore.

[jducoeur]

Oy. I can't say that I'm entirely surprised, but that kind of thinking makes me nuts...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

My sister worked in an area a while back where the caucasian girls would sometimes wear bindi dots (the sparkly stick-on ones) just for pretty. The restaurant she worked at decreed that only hindu women could wear them, because otherwise the religion/culture was being disrespected.

[serakit.livejournal.com]

Is that legal?

[jducoeur]

Probably. Mind, more is legal than people usually assume.

If the girls had been wearing the dots because it *was* a religious observance, then they might have a case. Not necessarily, mind -- the first amendment is more about preventing the government from religious discrimination than private businesses -- but it might not be laughed out of court. But as a simple fashion statement in a private establishment? Tough case to make, unless you can somehow argue that this is protected free expression.

(Caveat: IANAL. The above is simply my understanding of how it works...)

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

As for that term, I'm tempted to suggest "agitprop" but that isn't quite it, is it?