He’s an Arab.
No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man.
This was a recent exchange between John McCain and one of his supporters. Most of the reaction that I’ve read and heard about this so far has been to comment on John McCain’s “defense” of Barack Obama or to point out that the McCain campaign’s rhetoric is beginning to take on a life of its own.
I’m glad McCain finally said something in response to the angry mob mentality that has been building (is being crafted?) among his followers. I do, however, question his motives. I also think its a case of too little too late.
I also happen to agree with the stance that the racist anger is taking on a life of its own and the McCain campaign has unleashed a beast that will be nigh impossible to control.
My concern in this post though is none of that. What has struck me about this story is the fact that McCain’s response has been widely considered at least adequate, if not laudable. Why is that though? Why is it that the reply to the statement “He’s an Arab” is “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man.”? Is that really the logical reply? Is it because somehow Arabs are necessarily “indecent” or not “family men”?
The implication of McCain’s reply is that he was contradicting the accusation that Obama is an Arab and qualifying the “No ma’am” with the contrasting “He’s a decent family man”. I heard this exchange in the same way that I would hear one person say “The sky is green.” and a response of “No, ma’am. It is blue.”
Why is it that this is accepted in our society as a logical, adequate reply? If someone were to comment on another person by saying “He’s a Puerto Rican” of “He’s Italian.” or “He’s a schoolteacher.” Would anyone still see the logic and be applauding a response of “No ma’am. He’s a decent family man.”
But here we have that exchange left hanging with the resultant implication.
He’s an Arab.
No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man.
Leave a Reply