by Tyler Anderson
You have to believe me: I really didn’t want to do this. In fact, I specifically told myself to out run all of my Trumpian temptations as I prepared for this article, but, alas, I have failed. I am slave to the illogical, contradictory blabberings of the presumptive Republican nominee, and I as I closely read and re-read our Declaration of Independence, I couldn’t deafen the blaring modern parallels between Trump and King George’s “Despotism”, specifically regarding safety and immigration. My contribution will probably not be an entirely original analysis—Trump has been likened to despots for almost a year now—but I couldn’t conscionably ignore the violations Jefferson cites in the Declaration of Independence that would (or still) persist today under a Trump Presidency. First, Jefferson remarks on The King’s “[endeavor] to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither…”. Of course King George purposefully gummed up immigration to the colonies out of population management concerns—not necessarily to alleviate the colonists’ concerns for national safety--but it’s hard to not connect the King’s overreach to Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim refugees and immigrants in 2016. Based off what I’ve read, the American colonists welcomed immigrants simply because there is a solid, reassuring strength in numbers. Today, we welcome immigrants in hopes of diversifying our economy, culture, and education. To “ban” an entire population from our shores, regardless of reason, compromises the foundation we rest our entire republic on: independence. To be wholly independent means to move where we want to move, believe what we want to believe, explore what we want to explore and live amongst others in harmony without stifling political and philosophical directives. Like King George, Trump is actively seeking to obstruct a population’s freedom of movement; however, he is doing it in the name of public safety. Regardless, he’s taking a page straight out of the 1776 playbook to further his position. Government officials can’t institutionally ban an entire population of people or complicate immigration and integration unless they drum up a resounding fear of amongst the masses, and how does an institution do that? Dehumanization of course! Sadly, our esteemed Founding Fathers weren’t immune to this tactic either. In fact—perhaps regrettably?--they are kind enough to deliberately draw out the dehumanization of entire population in our country’s most important document when listing one of King George’s transgressions: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us”….. San Diego, anyone? Chicago? Potentially Cleveland? ‘[He] has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Here, I don’t think it’s a stretch to replace “Indian Savages” with “Muslim Refugees”. Of course I am not implying that all foreign “Muslims” are savages; rather, I’m contending that Jefferson’s characterization of the “Indian Savages” parallels Trump’s inane characterization of the foreign Muslims who are seeking refuge in America. Trump has gone on the record with quotes such as, “I think Islam hates us”, and “It is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension”, and " our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” Of course Trump has recently softened his stance on Muslim-banning, but please note the generalities and the connotation of almost inevitability in the above lines, as though each Muslim is genetically made up of an unabated hatred for America and its values, not unlike the Founding Fathers’ use of “merciless”, “Savage”, “known rule”, and “undistinguished destruction” in their characterization of the Native Americans. However, the primary difference between these two characterizations is context: The relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans was notoriously violent and strained; several Native American tribes did in fact ally with the British in hopes of avenging tribal losses and conserving pockets of their land. On the other hand, Outside of ISIS—a group that reportedly makes up only 31,500 (at most) of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims—there simply isn’t an Islamic-fueled existential threat to America that warrants Trump’s recycling of such incendiary language. Unlike the British in 1776, modern nations are not contracting out warriors to further their own political agendas on America. North Korea isn’t contracting out scores of Syrian suicide bombers to attack The Capitol. Russia hasn’t hired Libyan nationals to terrorize American schools or workplaces. The fact of the matter is misguided outsiders of all races and religions carry out terrorism in America, and Trump’s lines are a reminder of how poorly we have escaped our bigotry and prejudice over the past 240 years. We are still led to believe that a group incorrectly deemed unconscionable and “savage” threatens us existentially, a belief that only cuts and divides. Two hundred and forty years later, and there is still very much an “us”, and very much a “them".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFollow me @MrG_Unit Archives
August 2016
Categories
All
|