John McCain’s racism?
August 14, 2008
“I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.”
- Senator John McCain
Here’s a video of author Irwin Tang discussing his new book Gook: John McCain’s Racism and Why it Matters. The book connects McCain’s repeated racist statements with his repeated warmongering statements.
Tang’s final point is important. Had McCain used “the ‘n’ word” repeatedly to describe someone who had tortured him, he would never be considered as a presidential candidate.
Advertisement
46 Comments
Comments are closed.
Right.
But why the question mark?
And everyone should note McCain’s constant braying about Georgia, about how Georgia is the new Czechoslovakia (thus that Putin is the new Hitler), etc. One can condemn Russia (as has Obama) without ignoring the fact that Georgia initiated the conflict and is (also) run by nationalist xenophobic warmongers. But McCain and his neocon advisers (and he has them) want a new Cold War. Also, note that McCain’s foreign policy adviser is a paid employee of the state of Georgia.
Why is McCain so eager for war? Because he is a petty, sick, weak man who can only find meaning in war and violence. And because history shows that Americans often vote for candidates who bray about the “necessity” of war.
A couple of general questions to those who are going to be spitefully attacking Michael’s post:
1) Do you think that the history recounted in the Bible is finished? If not, what do you think we, specifically as citizens of the United States, should be doing to prepare for the fruition of God’s will on earth?
2) What is the difference between the Pauline claim that Jesus died for our sins, and the claim of Caiaphas that it is good that one man should die so that many should be spared?
But McCain knows how to win wars, as he is constantly telling us. (I wonder where he got that experience and know-how).
And unlike Obama, McCain is “COUNTRTY FIRST”.
I dunno. I think a man can be wrong, even radically wrong, without being petty, sick, or weak. Senator Obama certainly doesn’t think he is. “I believe John McCain is a good man and a genuine American hero.” Etc.
My grandfather had similar problems with the Koreans after he came home from that war. He was just not able to forgive them, and by “them” I mean anyone of Korean descent, since he seemed incapable of making the distinction between the ones he fought and everybody else. This unfortunately cast a very negative light on the genuineness of his Christianity. To me, however, it is psychologically understandable.
Then again my grandfather never wanted to be President of the United States.
Dang, I think “gook” is the nicest thing I could call someone who tortured me for 5 years.
You people need a reality check. Obama injects more racism in 1 speech than you managed to find in 1 remark of a tortured man speaking of those who tortured him.
Oh, and yet another partisan, post aimed at one side here at Vox-Nova. You should be proud of yourself
Dang, I think “gook” is the nicest thing I could call someone who tortured me for 5 years.
Are we sure the term refers only to his torturers? Is not the implication of the book that McCain used the term to designate a whole people? I think we would have to read the book before making a judgment either way, which is what Michael conveys with the question mark in the title of his post.
Oh, and yet another partisan, post aimed at one side here at Vox-Nova. You should be proud of yourself
Did you miss yesterday’s posts on the Democratic platform and on the criticism of Obama’s abortion position in America? Is it really us who are being “one-sided”?
To me, however, it is psychologically understandable.
Yes, understandable without a doubt. Especially when you consider that McCain’s (and other soldiers’) racism is not an unfortunate side effect of war, but something that is taught in the very process of making soldiers. Soldiers must be taught to dehumanize the enemy because human beings are hard-wired to despise killing other human beings. (See Dave Grossman’s fantastic book On Killing.) McCain was trained to be a killer, and thus he was trained to be a racist. A good number of former soldiers seem able to shake the military’s racist training. It’s a shame McCain’s sunk in deep down. This is precisely why I am all in favor of non-soldier presidents.
Dang, I think “gook” is the nicest thing I could call someone who tortured me for 5 years.
It is absolutely understandable why McCain would want to call his torturers names. But one does not immediately reach for a racist slur in such cases. Again, had it been the ‘n’ word, most people would not find it at all acceptable.
Oh, and yet another partisan, post aimed at one side here at Vox-Nova.
I am indeed partisan. I am partial to the truth.
Tim, I might also point out to you that my only other posts directly commenting on the presidential candidates were a post criticizing Obama and a post criticizing Clinton. That makes my score 1 post against the Republican candidate and 2 against the Democratic candidates, if you are keeping score.
Obama injects more racism in 1 speech than you managed to find in 1 remark of a tortured man speaking of those who tortured him.
Only someone who does not understand English or racism would say that without being a deliberate liar.
McCain was trained to be a killer, and thus he was trained to be a racist.
Coming from a military family, I have been told countless times how true the first clause of this sentence is. My father, who served in the Marines, told me that not only was he taught to dehumanize the enemy, but also that he was not to think for himself. Rather, he was to obey and to react without thought. The other members of my family had a very difficult time shaking the effects of their military training (Marines, Army, and Navy).
Obama injects more racism in 1 speech than you managed to find in 1 remark of a tortured man speaking of those who tortured him.
I’m going to need specific examples. Apart from the Jeremiah Wright incident, Obama doesn’t really “inject race” into his campaign. This strikes me as more of a republican talking point designed to inoculate themselves against charges of racism.
Irwin Tang is a partisan Obama supporter and has made lots of unsubstantiated claims.
McCain used the word to refer to his captors and them alone. He has been criticized for it and he has apologized. I have no problem accepting his apology but the fact that he used the word, and in public for that matter, just demonstrates how clueless he is on race issues. Combine that with his cluelessness about technology (doesn’t use a computer) and foreign affairs (thinks we’re attacked because we’re free), and he’s clearly unfit to lead.
Michael Iafrate, a caveat:
Have you never read Don Quixote or any one of the “romances of chivalry” that it spoofs? Do you not remember that Christ dialogued with soldiers without despising them, or even criticising them much?
The problem is not really that of the vocation of the soldier, which John Ruskin characterised as the “readiness to die for us.” Instead, it is with HOW the modern nation-state PRACTISES war: ever since, say, the French Revolution, it has become necessary to DEMONIZE the enemy and completely reject “just war” principles–which are identical to the principles of “chivalry,” as practised by almost two milennia of Christian civilisation in Europe.
McCain and Bush ARE monsters, but it’s the nation-state and idolatry of it that have made them such, not the profession of arms. In order to fight the kinds of wars that the nation-state pursues, it is NECESSARY to despise and demean one’s foes. The disadvantage to the nation-state is that this mentality creates a tremendous capacity to ignore and disregard the abilities and talents of one’s foes. The best book on Osama Bin Laden, written by an ex-CIA operative, commented on the American government’s inability to recognise his tenacity and formidable organizational skills, and said that this inability to RESPECT the abilities of the West’s foe would lead to defeat.
This CIA operative has been proved right ever since. Look, for example, at the Taliban/Al Qaeda’s ability to resurrect themselves in Afghanistan and Waziristan. Do you think that Saladin and Richard Coeur de Lion were unable to respect each other?
Apart from the Jeremiah Wright incident, Obama doesn’t really “inject race” into his campaign.
I agree Obama doesn’t “inject race” into the campaign. Race is an issue that is already present. He doesn’t need to “inject” anything. Curious, though, how Obama “injected race” into the campaign through the Wright incident?
Irwin Tang is a partisan Obama supporter and has made lots of unsubstantiated claims.
Such as? I don’t know much about him; only that he wrote this book.
Do you not remember that Christ dialogued with soldiers without despising them, or even criticising them much?
I certainly do. I also dialogue with soldiers and am friends with a few. Nevertheless I am convinced that the military training of the United States truly warps human beings and that it takes quite a Christian disciple to resist and/or recover from it. Rather than simply disrespecting soldiers, as some here seem to think I do, I think it shows a lot of respect for soldiers to research the methods of military indoctrination in order to shine a light on it and to hopefully contribute to their liberation.
This is an interesting bit of info by a Doug Thompson on McCain:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/10086
Some of the jokes are real, real crude. But the article goes into more details, like when McCain said, “I play to win. I do whatever it takes to win. If I have to fuck my opponent to win I’ll do it. If I have to destroy my opponent I won’t give it a second thought.” I think we have seen this already.
Irwin Tang has called McCain a white supremacist who travels in neo-nazi circles and who also personally writes checks to terrorists. He’s trying to swiftboat McCain.
It should be noted that McCain enjoys overwhelming support among Vietnamese-Americans. They’ve accepted his apology.
Irwin Tang has called McCain a white supremacist who travels in neo-nazi circles and who also personally writes checks to terrorists.
Citation please?
It should be noted that McCain enjoys overwhelming support among Vietnamese-Americans. They’ve accepted his apology.
You certainly can’t speak for all Vietnamese-Americans, though.
Capitol Hill Blue is not a reliable source, as many liberal bloggers have recognized; it’s a site that spread scurrilous rumors.
Anyway, you guys shouldn’t be pushing this swiftboating book by Irwin Tang. If you do a little research, Irwin Tang accuses McCain of being a white supremacist because he endorsed George Wallace Jr. for a position in Alabama, and because, in turn, Wallace Jr. has spoken to the Council of Conservative Citizens. But Wallace Jr. is also a recipient of the NAACP Freedom Award. That argument is nothing more than guilt by third-hand association.
The comment of McCain to his wife has been verified by other media sources, and has been around for quite awhile.
Anyway, you guys shouldn’t be pushing this swiftboating book by Irwin Tang.
Who is “pushing” the book? I don’t “push” books I have not read. I’ve mentioned its existence and cited an interesting interview with the author in which he speaks in a balanced and truthful way and raises a serious critical issue. It’s telling, I think, that you are quick to dismiss Tang’s concerns without addressing the point he is making here.
Well, it’s equally telling that you link to this guy’s book without caring to check out his overall reliability. He’s making some really serious charges — not just that McCain said the word “gook” (which was already widely known), but that McCain is a secret white supremacist.
Are we sure the term refers only to his torturers?
McCain led the effort to normalize relations with Vietnam back in the 1990s. He also has an adopted daughter, Bridget, who is Bengali. I’d say that the evidence McCain holds some racial animus against Asians generally is pretty slim.
Remember this John McCain doozy about the teenage Chelse Clinton, in 1998:
(salon.com)
The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But in several major newspapers, the joke itself was kept a secret.
Salon feels its readers deserve the unadulterated truth. Though no tape of McCain’s quip has yet emerged, this is what he reportedly said:
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
Or that he’s a secret white supremacist . . . . how many of McCain’s detractors have adopted a dark-skinned child from a foreign country? That’s not something that anyone does lightly, and if you use Google (Google is your friend), you’ll see that real white supremacists despise McCain for doing that.
I would also say that while “gook” is clearly an offensive term, and McCain was right to apologize for using it even to refer to his torturers, comparing it to the ‘n’ word obscures more than it reveals. Even among epithets, the n word is sui generis, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that Michael feels free to use the word “gook” so long as it’s in quotes, but is constrained to use “the ‘n’ word” instead of using the actual word he means in quotes.
Maybe some of you right-wing Catholic McCain supporters might want to ask your war-mongering candidate why he supposes that the “boys” in the trenches are giving SIX TO ONE to Obama, as compared to McCain:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html
Maybe they know something that you armchair soldiers don’t?
I love it when people appeal to McCain’s torture to justify his behavior– not only his racist outbursts but his marital infidelity (that one comes from Sean Hannity). Will people point to the same issue to explain the wars he will attempt to start? That’s ultimately what scares the hell out of me.
Maybe some of you right-wing Catholic McCain supporters might want to ask your war-mongering candidate why he supposes that the “boys” in the trenches are giving SIX TO ONE to Obama, as compared to McCain.
The problem with this statistic is that only contributions over a certain amount are reported, which can lead to seriously skewed results. See here for an elaboration of this point relating to the similarly flawed claim that working class voters give more to Republicans.
In the last election, Bush won something like 80% of the overseas military vote. McCain may or may not win the presidency. That he will win the military vote (and especially the overseas military vote) is something I would be willing to put money on.
Well, it’s equally telling that you link to this guy’s book without caring to check out his overall reliability.
A link is not an endorsement. Why assume I did not check out the author’s reliability, simply because I come to a different conclusion that you do? I checked out the interview and various sites. It’s a good interview, and I see nothing unreliable in it. The book, I don’t know. Haven’t read it.
how many of McCain’s detractors have adopted a dark-skinned child from a foreign country? That’s not something that anyone does lightly, and if you use Google (Google is your friend), you’ll see that real white supremacists despise McCain for doing that.
Transnational adoption is ambiguous at best. It can be a sort of paternalism, powered by the ideology of the rescue of dark-skinned people by whites. Not saying that this is involved in McCain’s situation, but simply appealing to adoption does not prove anything.
Even among epithets, the n word is sui generis, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that Michael feels free to use the word “gook” so long as it’s in quotes, but is constrained to use “the ‘n’ word” instead of using the actual word he means in quotes.
I used the word “gook” because it’s the title of the book. I used “the ‘n’ word” because that is the phrase that Tang uses in the interview.
The attempt to make too big of a distinction between the two terms also conceals more than it reveals. The bottom line is that both terms have been explicitly used to describe and dehumanize peoples that whites have killed in large numbers.
Transnational adoption is ambiguous at best. It can be a sort of paternalism, powered by the ideology of the rescue of dark-skinned people by whites.
The McCains adopted Bridget at the request of Mother Theresa.
The McCains adopted Bridget at the request of Mother Theresa.
That’s great. Doesn’t mean he isn’t racist.
Look, it’s always incredibly amusing to see McCain supporters make excuses for his behavior and beliefs. I’m out of here for a couple days. Why don’t I leave you here to discuss it, and when I get back I’ll check in on your progress to see how you have “proven” McCain is not a racist, or how you have at least explained it away. You have until Sunday. Go!
Just a factual note, the invasion of the phillipines was a conflict which killed thousands of Muslims who have been trying to enforce Sharia on the phillipines for the last few hundred years and are still trying to. The author doesn’t seem too well informed.
Blackadderiv:
When FDR beat Hoover in 1932, the typical upper-class Republican response was, “How many people must have crawled out of the woodwork to vote for HIM!”
When Obama beats McCain, I can hear it now, at this site: “How many deluded youth and uneducated___________ (you fill in the word: darkies, Mexicans, hippies or, more tactfully, unassimilated aliens–you name it) must have been duped into voting for that flim-flam artist.” You’re NEVER going to accept him, even when he’s your President, even when he’s “reaching across the aisle,” even when he PROVES he’s willing to listen to creative “conservative” ideas. Face it, you’re just a bunch of ideologues who put your neo-fascist-cum-theological agenda FIRST, and your nation’s well-being second. You’re no different, historically, from the rabid abolitionists of the 19th century who prematurely doomed America to Civil War.
Did it NEVER occur to you that perhaps the very soldiers who are implementing the wrong-headed and self-defeating occupation of a Muslim country have RECOGNISED that they don’t belong there, and that Obama is–like Prime Minister al-Maliki–absolutely RIGHT in insisting on a 16-month framework–tops–for withdrawal? No, of course–that’s impossible to even contemplate in the ideological bubble in which you people function intellectually. Pathetic, brain-washed American sheep!
Look, it’s always incredibly amusing to see Obama supporters make excuses for his behavior and beliefs. I’m out of here for a couple days. Why don’t I leave you here to discuss it, and when I get back I’ll check in on your progress to see how you have “proven” Obama is not a racist, or how you have at least explained it away. You have until Sunday. Go!
When FDR beat Hoover in 1932, the typical upper-class Republican response was, “How many people must have crawled out of the woodwork to vote for HIM!”
No, it wasn’t. You seem to be conflating the 1932 election with the famous quote (which is itself apparently apocryphal) by Pauline Kael that she didn’t understand how Nixon could have won since nobody she knew voted for him.
You’re NEVER going to accept him, even when he’s your President, even when he’s “reaching across the aisle,” even when he PROVES he’s willing to listen to creative “conservative” ideas. Face it, you’re just a bunch of ideologues who put your neo-fascist-cum-theological agenda FIRST, and your nation’s well-being second.
Yeah, digby, you’ve certainly got me pegged.
Did it NEVER occur to you that perhaps the very soldiers who are implementing the wrong-headed and self-defeating occupation of a Muslim country have RECOGNISED that they don’t belong there.
If you’re so sure about this, then let’s put some money on it. I say that McCain will win a majority of the votes of military servicemen in the 2008 election. How much are you willing to wager that I’m wrong?
Look, I’m all for Obama, but think about it;
If you were stuck in a tiger cage for 5 years being poked with sticks and being fed scrapes of slop, I’d probably hate them too.
And when you think about it, this kind of thing happens all the time.
If you walk up to the average african american in today’s society, and ask them if they hate a white dude for slavery, he’d probably agree and say, yeah , I do hate them for that and not giving reparations.
If you walk up to to the average Japanese man, and say, do they hate America for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would probably do the same and say that they hate america for destroying their lives.
If you walk up to the average Russian, and ask if they hate the Germans for killing 7.4 million of their people, they would probably agree.
Come on people, It’s a harsh society and we have to live with it.
John McCain doesn’t sport a Nazi armband or a Clansman outfit, he’s just stating that he really does hate the Vietnamese for doing what they did.
I’m not even betting that Obama will WIN the national election in America, but I DO believe that, if he doesn’t, your country will become a banana republic–a financially exhausted, demoralized has-been of a nation, existing in the shadows of emerging Asian superpowers–within a decade or two.
However, to respond to your Pauline Kael reference, I don’t know how old you are, but not all information is stored on the “internets,” as John McCain likes to call it. About two decades ago a woman in Ohio wrote a novel about a group of wealthy Republican women in that state who responded, according to this fictional work based on twentieth century American history, to Roosevelt’s election, by wondering aloud, “Where did all these people come from?”–meaning the people who “crawled out of the woodwork,” to vote for FDR. At the time that I read a review of this novel, I remembered that my own grandmother (on the American side of our family) had recollected the same thing: she said her own mother (the heiress of a New York banking fortune) had said she didn’t know a single person who’d voted for Roosevelt.
And the more I think about Obama, the greater seem not only his similarities to FDR (in terms of being “not one of us” to American provincials and xenophobes), but also in terms of the amount of purely unwarranted hatred he’s able to arouse on the Right (Roosevelt WASN’T a socialist, and Obama ISN’T one either):
Although remembered today as the cheerful commander who saved his country from economic and military crisis, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, in his own lifetime, frequently regarded as a dangerous lightweight, rather like the current occupant of the White House. A distant cousin, Howland Spencer, described him as “a swollen-headed nitwit with a Messiah complex and the brain of a boy scout.” Walter Lippmann, the most respected political commentator in early-twentieth-century America, was equally condescending, describing him as “a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President.”
Even after he was elected president four times, by a population that loved him, Roosevelt never lacked for critics, particularly among the patrician class into which he was born. Dismissiveness gave way to cold anger when he revealed himself to be a populist tribune who was willing to fight the Great Depression by building up the welfare state and supporting the labour movement. Suddenly Roosevelt was a “traitor to his class,” to recall a famous but unattributed quote from the period. He’s a “crippled son-of-a-bitch,” said Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds, in a rather injudicious allusion to the president’s polio. The pundit and wit H. L. Mencken described him as “the Führer” and chortled in his diary when Roosevelt died, in 1945.
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2004.02-books-franklin-d-roosevelt-and-the-new-deal/
A distant cousin, Howland Spencer, described him as “a swollen-headed nitwit with a Messiah complex and the brain of a boy scout.”
http://www.jeetheer.com/politics/fdr.htm
And something tells me that your ferocious hatred of this great man is going to build and build to the point that you’ll no longer be able to judge his words or actions rationally–just as my own ancestors were not able to judge Roosevelt’s.
something tells me that your ferocious hatred of this great man is going to build and build to the point that you’ll no longer be able to judge his words or actions rationally
There’s a term for this. I believe it’s called projection.
Its sad that people here are trying to excuse his racism. Wouldn’t a good Christian turn the other cheek? I mean its been over what 40 years?
Transnational adoption is ambiguous at best. It can be a sort of paternalism, powered by the ideology of the rescue of dark-skinned people by whites.
What’s “ambiguous at best” supposed to mean? The obvious “best” interpretation of McCain’s actions — and the normal interpretation for someone not driven by irrational hatred of the man — is that his adoption indicates openness of heart, concern for others, and the willingness to be charitable in one of the deepest and most self-sacrificial ways possible (i.e., by sacrificing incalculable amounts of time and emotional energy in raising a child).
I call BS. In 2000, John McCain visited Vietnam, including the Hanoi Hilton:
“My job here is to commemorate the beginning and continuation of a new relationship between the United States and Vietnam,” said McCain, a leading advocate of reconciliation between the former foes.
McCain’s arrival at Hanoi’s Noi Bai Airport was much more subdued than the red-carpet treatment the Vietnamese provided Monday for a high-profile veterans group, including James Kimsey, founding chief executive officer of America Online.
No senior Vietnamese officials were present today, although U.S. Ambassador Pete Peterson welcomed McCain and his wife, Cindy, and teen-age son Jack as they came off the plane and into the sweltering heat. A visit to the “Hanoi Hilton,” originally planned for today, was postponed until Wednesday for unspecified reasons.
At a brief airport news conference, McCain was asked if he felt any lingering bitterness from the war. “I put the Vietnam War behind me a long time ago,” he said. “I harbor no anger, no rancor.”
(AP 2000 http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_McCain.html )
And trying to tar McCain’s adoption of a third world child – out of the blue, and not in the media – is just really, really screwed up. It’s like the whisper campaign in 2000, saying he had a ‘black love child’. Shame on you.
Classy post. Old comments that have long ago been apologized for should be dragged up and paraded around again because we all know that people never change and never improve. Right?
If by “projection,” blackadderiv, you mean that I’m going re-double “hatred” of John McCain if and when he becomes President, you are deeply, deeply mistaken.
For your information, I SUPPORTED John McCain when he pursued the Republican nomination in 2000. Though living outside the country at the time, I obtained an absentee ballot from my “home of record” and voted for him in South Carolina. I am personally aware of folks–acquaintances–who were “push-polled” about McCain’s “black, bastard daughter” by Rove’s operatives–the same Rove who is now giving advice to the McCain campaign. I believed, in those days, that McCain was the best candidate the Republican Party had on offer, and I STILL think he should have been elected President in 2000, but that his moment has passed.
The American part of my family are solidly Republican, and I used to be, too. However, Bush, Rove and Cheney have turned the Republican Party away from a moderately centre-right party (which I believe it was, even under Reagan) into a nationalist, xenophobic and nearly-fascist, religiously-crazed political force which is not qualified to meet the global challenges of the 21st century.
If McCain is elected, I’m not going to go ballistic on American politics–just going to shrug and give up on them–and make plans to REMAIN in Europe for the rest of my life. I do not want to live in a country whose leadership is spoiling for war with every Tom, Dick and Harry on the international scene. It is free enterprise, plus social-welfare safety nets and good education which make a country strong.
Classy post. Old comments that have long ago been apologized for should be dragged up and paraded around again because we all know that people never change and never improve. Right?
The post is not about a quote from 8 years ago…it is about a book that came out last month.
And trying to tar McCain’s adoption of a third world child – out of the blue, and not in the media – is just really, really screwed up. It’s like the whisper campaign in 2000, saying he had a ‘black love child’. Shame on you.
I didn’t try to “tar” his adoption. His “adoption of a third world child” was cited as evidence that he is not racist. All I did was say that that is not evidence of not being racist, because the practice can have elements of racism embedded in it, even if it is done with good intentions. I would never make a judgment about McCain’s personal life in that area, but I don’t think citing that as an example will do.
White supremacists don’t adopt dark-skinned children, so that tells us something about the credibility of the scurrilous book to which you linked.
White supremacists don’t adopt dark-skinned children, so that tells us something about the credibility of the scurrilous book to which you linked.
The only thing that will really “tell us anything” about the book in question is to read it. Perhaps the adoption is dealt with in the book. You won’t know unless you read it, but somehow I doubt you will want to engage its argument. You are too ideologically wedded to your candidate to think critically about him.