5/29/2008

Delicate sensitives Part II: Enter the Republicans
Filed under: Stupidity — nobrainer @ 12:41 am

We all know that Republicans and right-wingers deplore all things Politically Correct. That is, it would seem, unless it is those right-wingers demanding correctness and sensitivity. You see, Rachael Ray, and you know that I hate Rachael Ray, appeared in a recent Dunkin Donuts commercial. In the commercial she was wearing a scarf. Apparently it was the kind of scarf that makes some Republicans go hyper-sensitive and forces their heads to explode.Rachael Ray - terrorist scarf?

Does Dunkin’ Donuts really think its customers could mistake Rachael Ray for a terrorist sympathizer? The Canton-based company has abruptly canceled an ad in which the domestic diva wears a scarf that looks like a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.

Some observers, including ultra-conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin, were so incensed by the ad that there was even talk of a Dunkin’ Donuts boycott.

‘‘The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,’’ Malkin yowls in her syndicated column.

‘‘Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.’’

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be easier just to yank the ad.

Now certainly I can’t prove that Rachael Ray is a terrorist sympathizer, but it’s pretty clear that she’s in the lead for consideration of being the anti-Christ regardless of her most recent advertisements. However, all that doesn’t even bother me. I am bothered that I’m not only supposed to have even the slightest fucking idea what a keffiyeh is, but that I should be made very angry whenever someone might wear something similar. I guess I better make sure I put a US flag pin on my lapel tomorrow, in case the absence of it proves to everyone that I’m a hardcore communist sympathizer.

collapse Doug Stewart Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 7:39 am

How would you feel if she was rocking a Che Guevara t-shirt? What about a Chairman Mao one?

The keffiyeh has been appropriated by leftist anti-war and anti-Israel types as representative of the “Palestinian” “resistance” and thus has a good deal of symbolism to it. I don’t think a full-scale freakout is in order, but I do think it’s good business on DD’s part to pull an ad that could be offensive to folks who might otherwise buy their over-cooked caffeine carrier matrix.

Reply to this comment
 
collapse Evan Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 11:14 am

If only Malkin knew what an affront it is for a woman to be wearing a keffiyeh (if that’s even what it is).

Using Malkin’s idiotic line of reasoning, American men should never entertain the idea of growing moustaches. And I should boycott the new Persian restaurant that just openned downtown. Arabs invented algebra, so we should consider taking that out of the school systems (along with evolution too). You wonder where people like her might draw the line — when all Americans are required to wear a state-approved uniform?

How would you feel if she was rocking a Che Guevara t-shirt? What about a Chairman Mao one?

I’d feel fine. We live in America right? Not to mention that both those guys are dead and the ideologies they stood for have crumbled as well. That’s like asking, “How would you feel if she was wearing a Boer or a Prussian t-shirt?”

at the same time, MM, et al., do have a point.

What’s that? We should be trained to hate everything Arab or Muslim? That Rachel Ray and some fashion designers are traitors? Michelle Malkin is a jingoist rabble rouser.

Reply to this comment
 
collapse Doug Stewart Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Evan:
Ideas have consequences. Che and Mao were part and parcel of two hideously totalitarian regimes that persist to this day and are responsible for countless deaths and nigh-endless misery for those caught under their “revolutions”. Prancing about the Swarthmore campus flaunting your “rebellious” views via a t-shirt is one thing. Attempting to sell a product while sporting a symbol of an evil ideology is a whole ‘nother ball of wax.

I’ll readily accept the explanation that no ill will was intended by the ad’s producers. They wanted “Raaaach!” (ptui!) to look hip, with-it, and that’s okay. However, would they be as willing to drop Ray into an ad spread rocking a swastika armband if, for some unknown reason, the fashionistas of the world decided that retro S.S. chic was “in”?

I’m trying to separate intent from effects here. I’d lay even money that Dunkin Donuts, the ad company, Rachel Ray were simply guilty of not doing their homework/being caught flat-footed, but they were not inherently attempting to show sympathy with the “Palestinian” “cause”. Their response at least makes good business sense: “Hey, one of our ads is creating a stir (in a bad way). Maybe we ought to pull it so we don’t lose any sales.”

Using Malkin’s idiotic line of reasoning, American men should never entertain the idea of growing moustaches. And I should boycott the new Persian restaurant that just openned downtown. Arabs invented algebra, so we should consider taking that out of the school systems (along with evolution too). You wonder where people like her might draw the line — when all Americans are required to wear a state-approved uniform?

Straw men. Moustaches are not inherently associated with an evil ideology (Hitler and Stalin both wore ‘staches! Everybody shave!) and that Persian restaurant isn’t a symbol of the Islamic Republic, is it? (If it’s flying a flag depicting the Ayatollah out front, I’d advise you steer clear of it…). The keffiyeh is associated with the “Palestinian” “struggle” and thus differs entirely from your counter examples.

Reply to this comment
 
collapse Evan Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am

The keffiyeh is a symbol of an evil ideology? What ideology is that exactly? The whole conflict in the middle east is too complex to boil down into one ideology against another. And that word — evil — it’s like nails on a chalk board. “Evil” is a pregnant word that muddles an otherwise rational debate. Evil to whom? It’s an absolute concept that is anchored in religion and morality. Which means you’re implying that we are, or should be, locked in a religious struggle. This is a poisonous way of looking at the world. That aside, as participants in the conflict, an objective perspective from which to assign evilness is impossible.

As for Mao and Che, Communism’s death rattle was loud and it came a long time go. It is dead. We won. Moscow now has the highest rent prices in the world! Yay capitalism! As much as you wish we had an identifiable evil enemy to paint a target on, we don’t. “Terror” doesn’t even come close to filling that gap. A keffiyeh is not the same as a swastika or hammer and sickle.

Yes, Dunkin Donuts was smart to remove the ad. But the keffiyeh as a symbol is imbued with meaning by people like Malkin who promote it beyond the fringes. She’s just as responsible for elevating the keffiyeh to the consciousness as any of the fashionistas you reference. The fact that you and I seem to understand that DD and RR meant no ill with the fashion choice, only emphasizes my point that Malkin is a jingoist rabble-rouser.

Reply to this comment
 
collapse Doug Stewart Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Evan:
Those little rose-colored, underlined text-thingies are called “links”. Did you bother to read the text at the other end of mine?

If not, it’s a useful discourse by Real Life Socialists talking about the symbolism of the keffiyeh.

And if you can’t stand and call the murderous death cult cultivated (no pun intended) by Yassir Arafat and his cronies “evil”, then you’re not a serious person when it comes to political discussions.

It’s not a symbol imbued by those on the Right, it’s a symbol taken up and waved proudly, nay, “deffiantly”, by those of the Left.

Reply to this comment
 
collapse Evan Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm

OH!!! that’s what those red underlines indicate!? Your snarky un-discourse-like sarcasm aside, that Socialist website was the main motivation for my mention of the “fringes.” It was subtle, yes.

Fringes or not, let’s take a look at what those real life socialists think the keffiyeh represents:

a symbol for all people who struggle for unity against colonial occupation and oppression around the world

Sounds better than a platitude-laden bumper magnet–and it’s a fashion accessory too! On second thought, I think I’m going to buy dozens of keffiyehs and give them out as Christmas gifts to all my democrat and socialist friends. I’ll have to come up with some gift ideas for all my fascist friends though. Any ideas Doug?

And if you can’t stand and call the murderous death cult cultivated (no pun intended) by Yassir Arafat and his cronies “evil”, then you’re not a serious person when it comes to political discussions.

If you can’t understand the relativity of the word “evil,” you’re not a serious person when it comes to living in reality. There is a lot to be gained beyond the finite “us” against “them” frame of understanding. Take the political reins out of your mouth for a few minutes and try thinking both objectively and subjectively. When we or Israel drops a bomb and causes some “collateral damage” to innocent people, do you think that is any less “evil” than other acts of murder? It isn’t. The difference is that we were doing it and there might have been some strategic gain from our perspective. Obviously, sometimes (like in the face of annihilation) you are forced to make these tough calls, but (unless I’m missing something) we’re not in that situation.

Look, we obviously disagree on this and probably many other fundamental points. You imply that you’re a (staunch?) supporter of Israel. And you seem like an articulate guy, so I’m curious about your understanding of the middle east and, in particular, the Israel/Palestinian conflict. What compels you to take the stances you do?

Not to totally preempt you, though ‘W’ established a clear precedent for preemption, I’m not looking for the boilerplate responses about terrorism, suicide bombers and their deplorable tactics, or Islamo-fundamentalism and its aggressive intolerance towards non-believers. Can we agree that all sides have a lot of blood on their hands? If so, why is Israel universally more right and worthy of your support?

Reply to this comment