…I can buy a a Native American headdress on ebay. The only two members of Congress are Tom Cole and Markwayne Mullin: both of them Republican: there are obviously indigenous Americans who support this President. They didn’t need to be “near this specific rally site.” They could have flown them in for all we know.
This is an administration that did this. That filled the press conference with staff members to laugh and clap. There isn’t anything particularly extraordinary about this propaganda effort.
These tribal executive officials wore their cultural clothing and communicated their support to their base without needing to go and print colorful signs to hold up.
They didn’t even have to make a trip to Kinkos, they just went to their closet.
Unlike ebay costumes their dress has meaning, and to be honest they don’t want to be invisible because the majority of Americans don’t even realize that natives are subject to widespread discrimination.
I think you are committing an attribution error here, and one I am calling out because of a concern that it will empower trump. Us non-members really don’t get to define what is acceptable for the various native populations and individuals.
What evidence do we have that the people in the headdresses are actually Native American?
I don’t know the answer to that, but given the Trump playbook it would surprise me not at all to discover that they are affiliated with no tribe, and may not even have family stories of Indian lineage. In other words, less “NA” than Elizabeth Warren, Trump’s favorite Native American.
Second: I think it’s doubtful that the purpose of putting these men front and center was to affect the Native American vote. First, as others have pointed out, the NA vote is not all that monolithic. Second, it’s small. MAYBE Indian voters would make the difference in defeating (or retaining) Jon Tester in Montana, or in races in North Dakota or Arizona…but it’s not going to make a particle of difference in the race for Georgia’s governor, Missouri’s senator, or the House members from Pennsylvania.
I suspect the reason for the headdresses was to reach a specific kind of white Republican voter–someone who likes the GOP, votes Republican most of the time, but has been turned off by the casual racism of the last couple of years, someone who’s wavering because he or she doesn’t want to be identified with white nationalsim and some of the nastier racially-tinged things that have been said about Maxine Waters and Barack Obama and yes, Elizabeth Warren. These images give cover for these folks to vote GOP after all: “Oh, well, see, they’re not really racist…look, those Indians just love Trump!” That message, if the Republicans can carry it off, will help them a hell of a lot more than flipping a few hundred NA votes.
Third: speaking as someone who has been active in political campaigns for a loooong time: while Trump has taken this whole thing to a new level, an emphasis on optics and propaganda of this sort did not originate with him, not even close. For years and years, in the USA at least, campaigns for both major parties have been staging photo ops that, in their zeal to spread a specific narrative, mislead or worse. Far be it for me to defend D. trump in pretty much anything, but displaying Indians prominently (if they really are Indians) is fairly small potatoes, in the general scheme of things.
Trump’s immigration policy consists, in its entirety, of “keep out all of the people with significant Native ancestry”. They’re not an afterthought; they’re the predominant thought in Republican minds.
I think the fact that most Mexicans and Central Americans have significant Native ancestry is incidental to and neither central to Trump’s immigration policy no does it comprise the entirety of that policy. He’s very much against immigration (legal or illegal) from countries: not on par, economically, with the US; not culturally similar to the US; not predominantly Christian. Middle Easterners and Africans are, obviously, not Native Americans and generally not welcome into the US under a Trump administration.
…yeah, but again that’s my point. Its all “small potatoes” in one big huge giant sack of potatoes. And its the sack that is the problem. Its a constant onslaught of repeated talking points and propaganda. Nearly everything that comes out of this administration is a lie. We’ve reached the point where an obvious and cynical stunt isn’t so obvious to many, if not most people.
Remember how many implored in the early days of the Trump administration not to “normalize” stuff like this? Well its normal now. So normal that the OP isn’t sure if this was staged or not and so normal that you don’t think its that big of a deal. And if it was only this stunt then maybe you would be right and it wouldn’t be much of a deal. But it isn’t.
Lets call this what it is. Not a “staged photo ops to spread a favorable narrative”. But propaganda.
Ah, right, I forgot about the “keep out Muslims” plank of the Republican immigration platform. So, keeping out those with Native American ancestry isn’t the entirety of the policy.
CarnalK, you do know why most Latin Americans have more pigmentation than most Europeans, right?
Mexicans have darker pigmentation than Brits because they have significant Native American ancestry. And that does appear to be the relevant difference, to Trump and the Republicans.
Okay, lemme rephrase then. This is not “small potatoes.” It’s “no potatoes.” In the context of US politics, selling a narrative that’s to your benefit is not unusual at all. Quite literally, everybody does it.
Look, I’m happy to call out Trump over and over when he does things that are outside the “normal”–and I do. And he does those kinds of things all. the. time. Calling the media the enemy of the people. Demonizing his political opponents. Lying about what he said three minutes ago, let alone about what he said last Thursday. White supremacist rhetoric, blatant attempts to suppress the vote, putting children in cages, glorification of violence used for political purposes. Etc. Etc. Etc. Each of these things is Not Normal. Each has a strongly negative impact on democracy, the rule of law…you name it. I hate it, and I make my hatred of it clear at every opportunity.
But this isn’t an example. As I said, I’ve been involved in campaigning (always for Democrats) for years. Two anecdotes:
Back when I was about 19 or so, I went to a pro-ERA rally. I was wandering around between speakers when two women with STAFF badges and big fancy cameras rushed up to me. “See that woman over there in the blue shirt?” one said. I looked and saw a young woman about my age. “Yeah?” I asked. “Go over and talk to her like you’ve known her a long time,” the woman instructed me, waving the camera. I did what I was told. I could hear the cameras clicking as the young woman in the blue shirt, taken somewhat aback, chatted with me. I don;t know for sure how or whether the pictures were used, but it was clear to me at the time (and still is) that they were an attempt to stage something: Look, here’s a young man who supports our cause, and he is here with his girlfriend! See how NORMAL this cause is, how INCLUSIVE? Based partly on a lie, but hey, never mind–it’s an important narrative, we’re justified.
Or this summer. I attended a Democratic rally in company with some family members, including my son and his (male) partner, my daughter, and her toddler (my grandson). The rally was big enough to have video screens for those too far away. We were down in the front, and when the cameras wandered from the speakers they typically went to my grandson (who is insanely cute even if I do say so myself)–who was very often in the arms of one or both of his uncles. the narrative, again, was clear–look at this nice young gay couple with a baby! Our party is so accepting, and this is what we mean by family values! Several people came up to my son and his partner after the rally ended–“oh, we saw you on the video board, such a cute family, such a cute baby, how long have you had him?” Again, the image isn’t quite accurate, but pushes a narrative favorable to the party.
So, no, I’m not going to get upset about the use of men in headdresses at a Trump rally. I can’t speak for other countries, but that kind of technique, for better or for worse, is as American as apple pie.
There is a difference between separating children from their parents and propaganda. One is an evil act. The other is propaganda.
I’m not talking about “putting people in cages.” I’m talking about “defending the separation of children from their parents by claiming they are only enforcing the laws on the books.” One is an act. The other is propaganda.
Defending the separation of children from their parents by falsely claiming “they are only enforcing the laws on the books” is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. But its still a lie. Its still a repeated talking point: so often repeated that thousands, if not millions of people believe it to be true. Its propaganda.
You know what they say about anecdotes right?
On the first occasion you were clearly complicit with the lie. So no wonder you are so accepting of propaganda. The second: was that staged? The cute baby: did you bring the baby along with the intent of getting put on screen to push a narrative?
I’m not asking you to “get upset.” I’m asking you and others to stop with the nonsense and to call this what it is. Don’t call it a “technique.” This “technique” is propaganda. Its part of a concerted propaganda campaign by an administration hell-bent on fooling the people of America. If this really is “as American as apple pie” then you guys deserve another four years of Trump and you will deserve everything that you are going to get. But I don’t think that’s true.