"Saddam Hussein is a man who is willing to gas his own people..."
-George Bush, March 22, 2002
"As he (George Bush) said, any person that would gas his own people is a threat to the world."
-Scott McClellan, March 31, 2002
"He poison-gassed his own people."
-Al Gore, December 16, 1998
Not many of us are shocked by these quotes that are unquestionable truths regarding one of histories worst villains. These sentiments are shared throughout both the West and East--a common ground that is increasingly hard to see with the constant bombardment of fear mongering, anger filled, unforgiving media. It seems that as the days go on, the common American finds the middle east more incompatible with western values and ideologies. As our seemingly different values surface through unstable waters, labels become evermore prevalent. With labels come walls.
I built a wall between you and me when you became someone outside of "us".
For example, in the field of education, when white teachers view immigrant children as "someone else's child" rather than "our children", this other child is perceived as inferior to our children. A child will only do as good as he/she is expected to do (most often this is the case). Students from immigrant families who attend immigrant dominated schools are far less likely to attend college than immigrant students who attend white-dominated schools. In white-dominate schools, teachers generally radiate high expectations to students regarding college standards. Students are not only informed about college--they are expected to go to college. However, students (white or non-white) who attend immigrant dominated schools are generally tracked for manual labor "careers" that more often than not require little to no education. They are not only uninformed of higher education but also learn to live outside the world of "the American dream" that promises opportunities for class mobility.
The moral of the story is this: a child who is treated as "someone else's child" is at a strong disadvantage with long term and often irreversible damage. This is just one of the many examples of the negative effects of labeling.
Now let's re-think this in terms of labels that unify a people. If I identify as a Christian and use the Christian label to bring positive steps towards building my community as well as my personal identity, good can come of it. However, if I get so wrapped up in this label, I may lose the ties between my own identity and the common humanity I once felt for the entire human race. I now no longer use my label as a means of unifying people, but as a means of excluding people who do not belong in my group. I smell danger.
Now I turn to the movie-goers and pose a question: why is it that more often than not, the villain of the story is not a white American? (I must here credit the more complex and creative films that tactfully avoid this cliche)
You may guess what my answer will be--if I identify with the villain, it will be harder for me to want his ultimate death or destruction. But if this villain has an unfamiliar accent and culture, I can enjoy whatever violent treatment he must endure at the hands of our cinematic hero. However, I must note that this "unfamiliar" accent is often times not unfamiliar at all--it is directly parallel to the people we see on the news as our very own villains which confirms how Hollywood and Washington policy are directly interlinked with one another. As we watch the anti-Arab racism that is growing exponentially prevalent in Hollywood, our friends in Washington (with our blessings) are losing their sympathy for "other peoples children" paving the road for increasingly violent and inhumane treatment of people labeled as "others".
Going back to where this entire discussion started, Saddam is known for the unrelenting violence that he marked this world with. However, the most shocking part of the violence for many people is that he committed it against "his own people". (I would like to humbly note that no Iraqi ever has or ever will belong to Saddam--not even his own children. His dictatorship over a people does not necessitate his ownership of the people because anyone at anytime still has free-will and free-thought. That is one thing he cannot rob the people of. Ina lilahe waina alahirajioon.) The reason I posted these specific quotes at the start is because of the underlying implications that often go unnoticed. McClellan notes the inhumanity of Saddam based on the fact that he is nearly indiscriminately violent. The point is not his level of violence, but that he inflict his "own people" with it. Now I pose the question, "Would it be any better if he did the same thing to people of another nation?".
Our labels have helped us hurt others without a guilty conscience. Should we feel more guilt if we personally know the people we are hurting? Is it significantly worse to hurt someone we know versus someone we are yet to meet?
Does the severed hand of a child found beneath the dirt of Gaza bleed any differently whether Arabic or Hebrew was counted on it's fingertips?
