Rejection, Reflection and (Ultimately) Reception: The Uighur Situation in Palau

As promised, Stephen blogs THIS WEEK from The Republic of Palau.

I arrived here Monday night (local time) amidst a rare flurry of international media attention. The media attention was not over my arrival, but over the recent decision of Palau’s president to allow thirteen soon-to-be-former detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to relocate here. My interest was to get as much reaction as I could, from as many folks as I could, as often as I could. The short story is this: while initial reaction here was quite cool to the idea of the Chinese Muslim Uighurs (pronounced: WEE gurs; also spelled "Uygurs") settling here after their forthcoming release, folks have turned the corner swiftly as the narrative has shifted from “taking America’s terrorists” to “welcoming marginalized people.”

I spent a half hour this morning talking with Patrick Tellei, who is president of the local college. Dr. Tellei was part of a delegation of four Palauans who visited with the detainees earlier in the week in Cuba, so I wanted to get his impression of them, of the local response to the idea of them moving to Palau, and of the shift in sentiment that I observed over the course of the week. While there were things that he was not able to share with me (for obvious reasons – they’re still being detained even though they have been cleared of charges, so there are lawyers involved), he was able to say that the eight men with whom they had a chance to speak (first in a group and then individually) were being fairly treated, were speaking English pretty well (though translators were around to help), and seemed genuinely appreciative of the opportunity to re-start their lives in Palau.

Dr. Tellei is in the majority position at this point in the week: supportive of President Johnson Toribiong’s decision to tell President Obama that the men were welcome in Palau. This is consistent with what I have heard from nearly everyone I have spoken to about this over the past 24 hours, but quite different from the reaction on Tuesday.

When I first arrived, I heard things like, “They’re terrorists,” and “why should we take them if the U.S. doesn’t want them?” The local papers on Tuesday (they are printed Tuesdays and Fridays) had headlines such as “Toribiong Defends Decision” (Island Times) and “[Senator and former President Tommy] Remengesau Says People Not Fully Informed on the Detainees” (Palau Horizon), which reflected a defensive position on the part of officials supportive of the relocation.

But there was an interesting contrast with a page 10 AP story about eleven asylum seekers from Myanmar who moved here back in February. The only member of the group who speaks English gushed about the reception from Palauans, who have treated them “as their own siblings.” When their money ran out, the Roman Catholic Church housed and fed them. This week, the president’s younger brother, who is also a Senator, decided to move them all into his farmhouse while they are waiting to hear if they are granted asylum.

Further, an op-ed on page 4 of the Horizon that day by Philip Haruo blasted what he saw as unwarranted hostility toward the Uighurs by sarcastically charging that folks who are outspoken about the plan “know more than the CIA and Interpol.” He noted that while he didn’t know much about the men that it wasn’t necessary for him to know: “I do know that they are human beings in need of help and no one seems to notice.” In word, Haruo was calling for (swallow hard here) empathy.

In contrast, we must consider the narratives that are available to Americans. The United States Congress has been clear that detainees are not welcome in the U.S., even if they are cleared of charges. Why? Because as much as we like to think that we value “due process” and the “best system on Earth,” we generally believe, deep down, that if someone is accused of something that they must have done it – or something else. Add to this the anti-Muslim sentiment that is rampant in the U.S. (and in much of the West), and we are left with a group of radicals (they want their own nation – sound familiar?) who are not Christian and, even though the Chinese government detests them and vice versa, are Chinese nationals (read: “communist”). Check out Newt Gingrich’s column in The Washington Examiner from last month where he tries and convicts the Uighurs right there in the Opinions section (and then be sure to read hilzoy’s point-by-point rebuke).

Similarly, the self-described conservative blog Hot Air was quite crass about invoking a common narrative, which has been that Palau is taking the men in exchange for money. (The U.S. has funded Palau since World War II and will likely continue to do so because it is in its strategic interest – there is no need for additional carrots or sticks.) Read through the comments of the folks who make up the private discussion board (comments can only be left by members, and membership is closed) if you want to experience severe insensitivity, hasty generalizations and arrogant mockery of Palauans.

Glenn Beck recommended that suspects be shot in the field rather than having formal charges brought against them. (Think I’m making this up? Watch here or below.)



For his part, Jon Stewart (see below or here) got a good laugh with the inevitable turn of phrase: Uighur, please!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Guantanamo Baywatch - Uighur, Please
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

In the three days since Haruo felt the need to remind Palauans of their duty to humankind and their culture of hospitality, the drastic change in public opinion can be seen by way of an unscientific measure of Palauans’ attitudes. Here are some excepts from letters to the editor in this morning’s (June 19, 2009) Island Times:

[From an American] I cannot imagine the deprivations these men have endured and a warm welcome to your island nation would probably do wonders. I appreciate [President Toribiong’s] compassion and willingness to give these men a chance, and I hope the people of your country appreciate what kind of president they elected.

If we Palauans are proud of our Christian heritage and boast so much about our faith in Jesus, where is the proof? This is the time when we will show the world, if no one cares about these Muslims our arms are wide open to take them in.

The Uighurs are being branded by terrorists by some people. To their countrymen, they are nationalists. Is it wrong of any group of people to aspire to create their own nationhood? If these Uighurs are terrorists to say X country, then obviously they have grudges and political differences against that X country. If they come to Palau, do they have political movement against us? Do you think they want to take over our national government and change us to become Uighurs and not Palauans? I doubt it.

I didn’t cherry pick these responses. There were five letters on this topic in the Times (no letters at all in the Horizon), and all were strongly supportive of receiving the Uighurs with open arms.

These hardly sound like sentiments from uneducated bumpkins who will do anything for money, as much of the Western media has portrayed them. And if they were Americans, we'd say that they "flip flopped" and ridicule them mercilessly for changing their minds and not standing their ground. In societies with more sophisticated discourse, however, it is considered to be growth, stimulated by a recognition that things are not always as they appear and that the complexities in life require us to be attentive, flexible, and reflective of our core values (and the degree to which our attitudes and behaviors are congruent with those core values).

On the other hand, we cannot pretend that the initial response was not at least partially rooted in ethnic and racial resentment. Palauans are quite concerned about holding onto their heritage, and the influx of foreign (mostly Filipino) domestic workers and (largely Bangladeshi) manual laborers is the topic of much conversation here. Xenophobia is not an American invention. There are about 400 or so Muslims in this nation of approximately 20,000, so there are lingering questions about where these men would live, if they have families to bring with them, where they will work, where they will worship, and how long they might stay. These are real (and legitimate) concerns, but the sense here today is that while those questions are important, the welcoming of these thirteen men is not dependent on the answers.

Four other Uighurs were sent to Bermuda last week (left), where reaction has been mixed, where U.S. legislators will have to go to hear their story, and where the men have refrained from car bombing anyone for seven entire days. I communicated with a woman there (a former student) who reports that

[t]he big deal here was not really so much about the men themselves, but in the way our premier handled the situation. . . . It was announced on CNN that the men were here and living in Bermuda and that is the first that anyone heard of it. The governor was told the night before the story broke on CNN. Many people were upset; a lot of people were worrying about them being terrorists, others were worried about a possible Muslim increase on the island. The men did a live interview with our one local news programs for 90 minutes were the public could call in and ask questions, and they were given the chance to tell there story, which is very compelling.

You can read more about the reaction in Bermuda in The Royal Gazette. (While I’d love to make that my next island destination, it’s unfortunately not in the cards.)

There is no question that this is a difficult situation all around. The Bush Administration was certainly overzealous in making arrests and accusations and in labeling people "terrorists," which resulted in the detention of people who are not and were not a threat to the U.S. But once that happened, the bell could not be un-rung. President Obama is moving to close Guantanamo Bay’s detention center, and Congress, responding to fears of Americans, refuses to allow any of the detainees that we took from around the world to stay. Fair enough, especially if they have a home to go back to, but in this case, they do not. This leads to a very complicated and unique situation that is undergirded by ethnic stereotypes and resentment.

For hard-line U.S. conservatives and other Obama Administration critics, there is a triple bind. First, they want Obama to fail (and are refreshingly forthcoming about it), so anything he does needs to be criticized to try to drive his approval numbers down. Second, they hate communism, so they have a tendency to be sympathetic to critics of (“Red”) China, particularly those who have been oppressed by the authoritarian regime there. But all Muslims are (at least potentially) U.S.-hating terrorists, so they find it difficult to rally around these men.

For Palauans, it is clear that they will do what the U.S. will not: honor the rights and dignity of men who have no charges against them, who have no home, and whose lives have been disrupted inappropriately by one imperial power as they struggled against another. We do not need to romanticize their struggle or turn them into saints to have empathy for their position. They are guerilla fighters who wish to have an independent Muslim state in Northwestern China. Maybe they’re even mean. Maybe they’re tough guys who are willing to kill for what they believe. If they were our Founding Fathers or otherwise on our side, we would champion their cause.

The point is this: Palauans are digging deep into traditions rooted in their Christian faith to make space for those who need it. For all the talk of Christian values from the left and the right in the U.S. and among its European friends, none (save, to some extent, British-ruled Bermuda) of us was willing to do as the holy books mandate in this situation. Far from mocking Palauans as money-hungry savages, we should think about what we might learn from our allies in Micronesia.

Perhaps this is a good time for us to take a hard, honest look at who we are and who we want to be.

Update: There are some diverse opinions about Uighur resettlement in Palau on the Palauan blog "Okedyulabeluu." Some of this information is rumor and directly conflicts what what I have learned from officials while I have been here, but in any case, it is worth exploring.

Four Days Left: Will The Hate Stop on Tuesday?

As we have done for the past three weeks (last week, the week before, and at the end of the first week of October), we continue to highlight the parade of hate that has surfaced from individuals and groups who oppose Obama’s candidacy. The question that remains is whether this activity will stop when the heat of the campaign ends on Tuesday (irrespective of the outcome).

All Together Now!

The vitriolic force behind bigoted Obama statements continued this week on the McCain/Palin campaign trail. At a rally in Denver, an Obama supporter has his or her (the supporter is not on camera) patriotism questioned and is told that “Satan is on [his or her] side,” while the words “terrorist,” “socialist” and “communist” are repeatedly applied to “Hussein” Obama (at some points referred to as “Osama”). One woman suggests that if Obama is elected, we will get “free turbans.” A man calls Obama a “Muslim communist” (whatever the hell that even is). Obama is also called “a bum” and a “piece of crap,” both of which we support because while they are mean-spirited, they are not racist.

The most disturbing element in this video comes at the beginning, when a little girl repeatedly creates monkey sounds and mannerisms while her family chants “Nobama.” She then remarks about Obama: “A monkey president,” while her little sister (we assume) is heard to say “a monkey from Tarzan” (twice). Click the image to the left to watch the video.


In Pottsville, Pennsylvania, the racism continued, but with more direct threats of violence. A McCain supporter chants “bomb Obama,” and clearly indicates that he knows of plans to assassinate Obama if he is elected, indicating a gun with his fingers (see image to the left – click for the full video). We expect that the Secret Service will be spending some time talking to this sweet gentleman.

Another man, with a sign that reads “Democrat for McCain,” admits that he would “never vote for a Black man.” Our favorite from this rally is a guy who is clear that he doesn’t “want to sound racist” when he states that he does “not want a black man running [his] country.”

No worries, bud. You don’t sound racist at all. You didn’t use the n-word or anything. It's all good.

One woman claims that Obama’s “associations and his judgment are not American.”

The well-informed McCain supporters at this rally inform us that Obama was 1) born in Kenya, as one man wonders where his birth certificate is (it is here, by the way, and has been for a very long time, though we’re sure these folks assume that it is either fake or that the Hawaii designation proves that he was, in fact, not born in America); and 2) Catholics who vote for Obama will be excommunicated from the Church.

Of course, there was the now-typical “Obama Hussein,” “Vote McCain, Not Hussein,” “communist,” “terrorist,” “welfare politics,” etc., as well. Good clean American heartland fun. On the “plus” side, one of the angriest men called Obama a “child killer,” which, again, at least is not racist.

Take Us To Your Leader

As we have pointed out before, the hatred is coming from the top down, not from the grass roots. A current example is a mailer sent out by the Virginia Republican Party that seems to have altered a photograph of Obama in a way that made him look similar to Osama bin Laden.

Research on campaign communication has shown that white candidates have darkened the skin of African American opponents in attack ads to make them look “more Black” (which translates into more sinister, lest trustworthy, etc.). Such an ad surfaced just this week in Minnesota.

The Republican National Committee has produced a spot in support of Erik Paulson, who is seeking re-election in the 3rd congressional district. His opponent is Ashwin Madia, who is Indian-American. Click on the image below, which compares images from Madia’s own ads to those in the RNC ad, to see the report from “Vet Voice” (Madia is a former Marine who served in Iraq, just the sort of person the RNC likes to attack as unpatriotic or anti-American -- see Republican Saxby Chambliss's indefensible abuse of Democratic Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in the war). You can see the RNC ad for Paulson here.

Robert Greenwald and the folks at Brave New Films have put together a compelling short compilation that shows how language that comes directly from Sarah Palin and John McCain has translated into the racialized hostility that we have seen at their events. It ends with David Gergen (you know, that member of the “liberal media” who advised left-wing wacko Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan) warning that such prompting could certainly lead to violence.

THIS WEEK, we witnessed a couple of steps in that direction. In Miami, Florida, two Cuban-American Obama supporters were surrounded and threatened by what the folks at FiveThirtyEight.com characterized as “an angry mob.” No one was physically hurt, and we hope that this is not a preview of things to come.

It was widely reported THIS WEEK, of course, that the federal government foiled a half-assed plot by skinheads to assassinate Obama. Though there was not much chance of this particular scheme being successfully carried out, the details are appalling.

Besides innuendo coming from McCain and Palin, there are more direct (but not too direct, of course) accusations coming from other Republican operatives.

Disgraced member of Congress Tom DeLay appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews on Thursday, who said not only that he was pleased with the tone of the campaign, but that McCain should actually step it up. He calls Obama a “radical” and a “Marxist,” and referred to his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers as evidence. DeLay is not afraid to play explicitly on white racial resentment: he noted that the problem with Jeremiah Wright was not his “outrageous” sermons (by whose standard?), but that he “is a black liberation theology preacher.”



When Matthews pushed DeLay about Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s call for a media investigation to find out which members of Congress are anti-American, DeLay defended the latter day McCarthyite, calling her “brilliant.” (Hey Tom: even if you like her, saying stuff like that on national TV, which prompted her vastly underfunded and under-supported opponent to raise $1 million in less than a week, is far from “brilliant.”)

DeLay suggested that people “call it [Obama’s philosophy] what it is” (e.g., socialist, communist, anti-American, terrorist-supporting), and noted that “the real Obama” is surfacing. He went on to differentiate Obama from a “legitimate liberal” like Congressman Barney Frank, for whom DeLay “has great respect.” In contrast to Frank, Obama wants to “shred the Constitution,” according to DeLay.

Finally, DeLay issued a guarantee that Obama will not cut taxes – essentially calling Obama a liar – but rather raise them to “80 per cent or 90 per cent.”

Remember, this guy was the most powerful man in Congress not too long ago.

This characterization of Obama as hiding who he really is (for another example, see the implicitly racist flyer sent out by the RNC last week that appears to the left -- click for enlargement and a related article) plays best against an opponent of color because white Americans, who are distrusting of politicians anyway, are all the more likely to believe that a person of color would be dishonest.

McCain national spokesperson Mike Goldfarb’s suggestion of Obama’s “shady” connections unraveled on CNN Thursday, as host Rick Sanchez did what members of the supposedly liberal media should have been doing all along: he challenged Goldfarb to back up his statement that Obama has associations with people who are anti-Semitic (which, of course, is really a suggestion that Obama is anti-Semitic, a claim that has particular power when leveled against an African American), anti-Israel and anti-American. As you can see in the video below, Goldfarb had nothing and was caught literally speechless in a lie.



Goldfarb is not the only one spreading lies about Barack Obama in the last week of the campaign. What appears below is the text of an actual email making its way around the Internet. Pay attention to how “official” it is designed to look (never mind the sentence fragments and what we would hope would be largely laughable arguments).

From Sunday's Televised 'Meet the Press' Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. Obama Explains National Anthem Stance

Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played. The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At the very least, 'Stand and Face It'

Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, 'As I've said about the flag pin, don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.' We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.[']

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our next President.

If only that were the only one. Check out this stuff from a group called Wake Up USA that is making its way around the Internet.

These people would be hysterical if they were not so scary. They accuse Obama of using “hypnosis” in his speeches (we’re serious – see this 60-page document for the “evidence”), among other alarmist claims (oh, and this is literal, as well – check out this video which actually starts with an emergency alarm).

Click on the image to the left to see their video entitled The Rise of the United Socialist States of America. The video lists all of “Barack Hussein Obama’s” radical friends and makes predictions of what will happen if Obama is elected, which includes “Increased company shake-downs by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk, if your company is not color-coded to their requirements. Black Reparations on the horizon?”

There’s more. You seriously just need to watch this (and listen to the doomsday music that plays in the background) to get the full effect.

Oh, and you ask who is behind “Wake Up USA?” We don’t know. We can’t know because they hide behind the technological equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan hood. They steadfastly refuse to identify themselves because of the “many threats” they’ve received. They have an elaborate set of “email guidelines” that is also worth a read.

For a satirical swipe at these sorts of web-based lies, see A.J. Caliendo's posting at This GUEST on Race.


The “Comments” Bigots

This is an actual comment on a YouTube video that Stephen stumbled across this week. (He wasn't searching for an example – it was the first comment when he clicked on this video). The actual video is pretty lame (a couple of guys ranting about how stupid McCain's arguments are), but the comments are reflective of what we've been seeing all across the country over the past month. Read through the comments section of this or any of the videos about Obama and you will see some of the most amazingly horrific racist vitriol you can imagine. Just look at this person's YouTube member name!

Y0UFILTHYN1GGER (57 seconds ago)
barak obammmba = dumb ugly nigger!
Michele 0bamba = monkey face baboon with smelly nigger hole!
John McCain = honest war hero!

Reverse Racism

Finally, former NBA star and outspoken critic of racism Charles Barkley joined the ranks of Barack Obama, John Lewis and John Murtha as he was chastised for speaking honestly about the role of race in the 2008 election in an interview with CNN’s Campbell Brown. Barkley’s comments are not really worthy of note for TWIR readers (but they are all on point, of course), but Noel Sheppard’s response is definitely worth consideration. Check out how incredulous he appears to be:

Words like welfare, terrorist, and Muslim are racial innuendos? Really?

Wow. I guess when I refer to Osama bin Laden as a Muslim-extremist and a terrorist, I'm really being a racist.

Thanks for telling me, Charles.

Of course, did you notice that Campbell never asked Charles if it's racist for a black person to vote for Obama just because he's black? Why doesn't that ever come up in any of these interviews about race and the campaign?

Hmmm?

We'll tell you why, Noel: Because perhaps Campbell Brown understands the racism is a term for systemic oppression, so it only works in one direction: to promote White superiority. The reason it “never” comes up is because most educated people understand the difference between racism and bigotry these days, so your invocation of what we have called the false reciprocity argument is way behind the curve.

We have already discussed in this space why using a word like “welfare” to refer to a tax policy by a Black candidate is racist. Ronald Reagan propagated a false image of a cheating welfare mother from the inner-city, and the image that most Whites have of a person on welfare has been that of an African American ever since. If the topic was a policy regarding aid to the needy, the word “welfare” would be more in order; because the topic is raising the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans so it can be lowered on the rest of us, the word “welfare” is inappropriate and patently racist.

The reason that it is not “racist” to call Osama bin Laden a Muslim extremist is because it is a description (and an accurate one) of one man, not a suggestion of characteristics based on stereotypes. When it is suggested that Barack Obama is a Muslim, there are implications that 1) all Muslims are extremists (which is patently false), and 2) that he is lying about who he really is, which plays into negative stereotypes about African Americans not being trustworthy.

Further, Sheppard conveniently ignores all of the “personal responsibility” calls Barkley puts forth – admonitions that conservatives would celebrate if made by one of their own.

But Barkley’s probably lying about his views on that anyway. He is Black, after all.