Ilhan Omar controversy

[Sour Masher]

I honestly don't think the phrase she used was particularly inflammatory or extreme, apparently I'm one of the few who don't think that. That said, I have a really hard time criticizing her for doing what she thinks she has to do to draw attention to what she believes is a problem, that victimizes her and her people, and one that has had absolutely zero focus for over 17 years.

I certainly wouldn't call it extreme. It was vague and minimizing. I'm not a fan of vagueness or euphemisms in general when talking about horrible things. It is dishonest. Just like when the US talks about collateral damage when our military kills woman and children. Call the thing what it is. It wasn't some people doing some things. It was radicals murdering thousands and ruining the lives of thousands more. Just like our military hasn't done some things to some people. We've killed thousands. In Yemen alone, we've killed thousands. I think if a general said something like, "we've started this organization to defend the honor or military personnel, because after some people did some things, we've all been unfairly maligned" you'd be offended by it, and rightly so. Murdering thousands isn't "some thing." It's murder. It deserves to be named for the horror it is, whether it is done by Islamic extremists, our military, or home grown terrorists.

ETA: But again, words matter, but deeds matter more. Anyone want to address the issue of Omar supporting the extension of benefits for 9/11 victims while some who are critical of her do not? What is the deal there? What is wrong with that legislation? What am I missing with it? It seems like it should be supported by all. Does the fact Omar supports it give her some benefit of the doubt on her phrasing? Does that fact that some critics of her do not support it undercut their criticism?

[Kevin Seitzer]

I certainly wouldn't call it extreme. It was vague and minimizing. I'm not a fan of vagueness or euphemisms in general when talking about horrible things. It is dishonest. Just like when the US talks about collateral damage when our military kills woman and children. Call the thing what it is. It wasn't some people doing some things. It was radicals murdering thousands and ruining the lives of thousands more. Just like our military hasn't done some things to some people. We've killed thousands. In Yemen alone, we've killed thousands. I think if a general said something like, "we've started this organization to defend the honor or military personnel, because after some people did some things, we've all been unfairly maligned" you'd be offended by it, and rightly so.

But again, words matter, but deeds matter more. Anyone want to address the issue of Omar supporting the extension of benefits for 9/11 victims while some who are critical of her do not? What is the deal there? What is wrong with that legislation? Does the fact Omar supports it give her some benefit of the doubt on her phrasing?

I don't think people who think what she said was vague and minimizing are actually understanding the English grammar construction that she used. Not that they aren't mind-reading properly, but that they are mis-reading how the phrases were used. She did NOT minimize 9/11. She didn't. And those who keep saying she did are not comprehending how the English language is used in this case.

"Some people" = "some Muslims, not all Muslims, not us in this room, not American Muslims"
that much should be obvious from the context, I would hope

"did something" = "acted"
That people are twisting this to mean that she is being vague about what was done is just wrong. Her WHOLE POINT is that the people who acted wrongly are not the people who are being punished. Some people did something and other people are punished for it. If we decided to kill the Austrians because Hitler was Austrian, and then an Austrian stood up and objected and said, "Because some Austrian did something, you're going to kill me?" Would that be minimizing the Holocaust? No. The point isn't about whether the Holocaust is good, bad, indifferent, worst crime in the history of humanity, or whatever. The point is that any injustice that followed it doesn't right the original wrong--it needs to be addressed and stopped. In no way does that minimize the horrible crime that was the original act. That isn't remotely the point, the connotation, or the insinuation of Omar's statement. It's completely clear, completely aboveboard, and completely correct. It doesn't matter how bad 9/11 was, it doesn't justify mistreating innocent people.

You're letting Trump get in your head and add freight to those words that was never there.

[Sour Masher]

I don't think people who think what she said was vague and minimizing are actually understanding the English grammar construction that she used. Not that they aren't mind-reading properly, but that they are mis-reading how the phrases were used. She did NOT minimize 9/11. She didn't. And those who keep saying she did are not comprehending how the English language is used in this case.

"Some people" = "some Muslims, not all Muslims, not us in this room, not American Muslims"
that much should be obvious from the context, I would hope

"did something" = "acted"
That people are twisting this to mean that she is being vague about what was done is just wrong. Her WHOLE POINT is that the people who acted wrongly are not the people who are being punished. Some people did something and other people are punished for it. If we decided to kill the Austrians because Hitler was Austrian, and then an Austrian stood up and objected and said, "Because some Austrian did something, you're going to kill me?" Would that be minimizing the Holocaust? No. The point isn't about whether the Holocaust is good, bad, indifferent, worst crime in the history of humanity, or whatever. The point is that any injustice that followed it doesn't right the original wrong--it needs to be addressed and stopped. In no way does that minimize the horrible crime that was the original act. That isn't remotely the point, the connotation, or the insinuation of Omar's statement. It's completely clear, completely aboveboard, and completely correct.

You're letting Trump get in your head and add freight to those words that was never there.

KS, I agree with you on most things most of the time, but we aren't going to agree on this. I will bring up that fact that I teach rhetoric and composition as support for my position that I understand the grammar construction she used. She used "some people" as a phrase instead of naming who those people were, which on its own, I think is fair--why name them as Muslims (even with the radical qualifier) when in fact many Muslims denounce them as NOT true Muslims. But the second part, where she used the vague phrase "some things" instead of naming the thing they did--that was a rhetorical mistake on her part, given her rhetorical situation. That fact is supported by the response she has gotten. You may disagree with that response, but it is certainly not surprising.

By using a vague phrase that can be interpreted as minimizing or dismissing the deaths of thousands, she is playing right into Trump's wheelhouse. I don't think, ultimately, it serves as a net positive for Omar or the real and important issue she spoke to in that speech. Why is it better to use a vague phrase rather than the precise phrase? In my previous example, would you not be offended by the general referring to the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemen as "some people did some things?" It is like the phrase, "mistakes were made." What mistakes, by whom? Why not be clear and honest and not gloss over the events? I'd argue she chose to do that, because she wanted to emphasize the plight of Muslims in this country and thought being specific about 9/11 might undercut or distract from that focus. I think her vagueness ended up doing just what she was trying to avoid.

But again, maybe I am wrong. FS may be right that we haven't talked about this issue on this board before, and now we are. Maybe more people will talk about it and address it head on now. It is something that deserves attention. I don't think I'm making a bold claim to say that Muslims in this country have faced more vitriol and bigotry than any other group in this country since 9/11. I think DL Hughley and other comedians were the first to make the point that Muslims have replaced African Americans as the most downtrodden group in the US.

ETA: In the example you use, the Austrian is naming the person and the act, so it isn't an equivalent example at all. He is saying some Austrian did something, and he also says, you are going to kill me. It is clearer than Omar's phrase, although it still would be better if "something" were replaced with "killed millions." I just don't see how you can't see how replacing the act of genocide with "did something" is in no way offensive to anyone. Don't you think the Anti-Defamation league would be all over Steve King if he said something like, "some people did something" to refer to the Holocaust. Or if Steve King came out tomorrow and said, "just because some people did something hundreds of years ago to some blacks doesn't mean we should be talking reparations now," I think you'd be like, wtf is the white nationalist mofo saying now to minimize slavery? I know that would be my response if he phrased it that way.

[Judge Jude]

"You are falsely and unfairly reading that into her speech because you want to hear it there, and that's your failing, not hers."

"You're letting Trump get in your head and add freight to those words that was never there."

somebody here needs a humble pill*


* - and it ain't like I've never needed one

[Sour Masher]

And once again, despite my long blocks of text being critical of her phrasing, I'd still like some dialogue on how Omar supports 9/11 victims and some of those criticizing her as uncaring and dismissive of 9/11 do not. What is that all about? I sincerely want to feedback, if anyone here has criticism of that bill. I do not get it at all.

[Kevin Seitzer]

KS, I agree with you on most things most of the time, but we aren't going to agree on this. I will bring up that fact that I teach rhetoric and composition as support for my position that I understand the grammar construction she used. She used "some people" as a phrase instead of naming who those people were, which on its own, I think is fair--why name them as Muslims (even with the radical qualifier) when in fact many Muslims denounce them as NOT true Muslims. But the second part, where she used the vague phrase "some things" instead of naming the thing they did--that was a rhetorical mistake on her part, given her rhetorical situation. That fact is supported by the response she has gotten. You may disagree with that response, but it is certainly not surprising.

By using a vague phrase that can be interpreted as minimizing or dismissing the deaths of thousands, she is playing right into Trump's wheelhouse. I don't think, ultimately, it serves as a net positive for Omar or the real and important issue she spoke to in that speech. Why is it better to use a vague phrase rather than the precise phrase? In my previous example, would you not be offended by the general referring to the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemen as "some people did some things?" It is like the phrase, "mistakes were made." What mistakes, by whom? Why not be clear and honest and not gloss over the events? I'd argue she chose to do that, because she wanted to emphasize the plight of Muslims in this country and thought being specific about 9/11 might undercut or distract from that focus. I think her vagueness ended up doing just what she was trying to avoid.

But again, maybe I am wrong. FS may be right that we haven't talked about this issue on this board before, and now we are. Maybe more people will talk about it and address it head on now. It is something that deserves attention. I don't think I'm making a bold claim to say that Muslims in this country have faced more vitriol and bigotry than any other group in this country since 9/11. I think DL Hughley and other comedians were the first to make the point that Muslims have replaced African Americans as the most downtrodden group in the US.

ETA: In the example you use, the Austrian is naming the person and the act, so it isn't an equivalent example at all. He is saying some Austrian did something, and he also says, you are going to kill me. It is clearer than Omar's phrase, although it still would be better if "something" were replaced with "killed millions." I just don't see how you can't see how replacing the act of genocide with "did something" is in no way offensive to anyone. Don't you think the Anti-Defamation league would be all over Steve King if he said something like, "some people did something" to refer to the Holocaust. Or if Steve King came out tomorrow and said, "just because some people did something hundreds of years ago to some blacks doesn't mean we should be talking reparations now," I think you'd be like, wtf is the white nationalist mofo saying now to minimize slavery? I know that would be my response if he phrased it that way.

I don't think it's equivalent to say "some people did something" when that's how you're summing up an act as way to avoid talking about it, and saying "some people did something" in the way that Omar did. I agree that in the other examples you give, that it would be minimizing. This to me is much more like a spouse, who has lost their spouse to, say a car accident or a drunk driver, saying, "Someone else did something, and now my family is the one that suffers." That would make complete sense for them to use that grammatical construction, and it wouldn't be minimizing the horror of the act or circumstance at all, would it?

[Sour Masher]

I don't think it's equivalent to say "some people did something" when that's how you're summing up an act as way to avoid talking about it, and saying "some people did something" in the way that Omar did. I agree that in the other examples you give, that it would be minimizing. This to me is much more like a spouse, who has lost their spouse to, say a car accident or a drunk driver, saying, "Someone else did something, and now my family is the one that suffers." That would make complete sense for them to use that grammatical construction, and it wouldn't be minimizing the horror of the act or circumstance at all, would it?

How can we even be certain the some people in her phrase refers to the terrorist and the something was the attack? I think that is the most logical assumption, but it isn't impossible that the some people is the media and the something is feed hysteria and bigotry by identifying the terrorist as Muslim and putting a burden on American Muslims to carry that weight in a way that Christian s are never required to do when Christian domestic terrorists kill people?

Yes, there are times when vagueness and euphemisms can be used as a way to spare someone's feelings. I think her aim in being vague, as I claim above, was to not draw attention away from the plight of Muslims in this country by using specific language about the event that some wrongly use to justify their bigotry. That may have been appropriate for her narrower audience. But for the wider audience it now has, it has done the opposite.

[Kevin Seitzer]

How can we even be certain the some people in her phrase refers to the terrorist and the something was the attack? I think that is the most logical assumption, but it isn't impossible that the some people is the media and the something is feed hysteria and bigotry by identifying the terrorist as Muslim and putting a burden on American Muslims to carry that weight in a way that Christian s are never required to do when Christian domestic terrorists kill people?

That is possible.

Yes, there are times when vagueness and euphemisms can be used as a way to spare someone's feelings. I think her aim in being vague, as I claim above, was to not draw attention away from the plight of Muslims in this country by using specific language about the event that some wrongly use to justify their bigotry. That may have been appropriate for her narrower audience. But for the wider audience it now has, it has done the opposite.

I don't read it that way, and with your first example, I guess I can see what you mean about it being vague, in that we can't be certain what she meant. I still don't think she was being vague about the horrors of 9/11. It doesn't make any sense to me that she would be. We all experienced that together, and she is part of the "we" that experienced that. Her other actions, like 9/11 responders bill that you mention, are evidence of that, as if she needed to provide any evidence any more than anyone else on this board does.

I think minorities often have their statements and stands interpreted in the least generous way possible, in a way that others do not. Colin Kaepernick being presumed to be against veterans, for instance, even though all the evidence shows otherwise.

[The Feral Slasher]

And once again, despite my long blocks of text being critical of her phrasing, I'd still like some dialogue on how Omar supports 9/11 victims and some of those criticizing her as uncaring and dismissive of 9/11 do not. What is that all about? I sincerely want to feedback, if anyone here has criticism of that bill. I do not get it at all.

I'll share a couple experiences that might explain my position on all this.

1) After 9/11 when I was pumping gas a truck pulled up with custom lettering that said "kill them all, let Allah sort them out". With a nuclear bomb symbol. Apparently this person was totally comfortable promoting this. I suspect they would not have been comfortable with a nazi symbol or a KKK sticker. But Muslims were totally open season.

2) My wife worked at a school with about third or more students with Somalian and Eritrean ethnicity. Many people kept there kids home one day when apparently someone discovered a "kill a Muslim day" post on facebook.

I have neighbors down the street and the girl looks like a mini Ilhan Omar. She is a bit younger than my kids, but they used to play a little, and she would knock on our door occasionally. It is really horrible for me to think that she and the kids at my wife's school have to put up with bullshit because they are different. and it's even worse when people won't stand up and support them because their only real representative didn't use appropriate rhetoric and composition in her attempt to stand up for them. The whole controversy is total bullshit and pisses me off more than I can describe. I don't think the people who discriminate against them much care about rhetoric, innuendo, eumpehisms, etc. And unfortunately the kids have to just understand that we are all ok with them being something less than American and making sure they know that.

[Sour Masher]

That is possible.



I don't read it that way, and with your first example, I guess I can see what you mean about it being vague, in that we can't be certain what she meant. I still don't think she was being vague about the horrors of 9/11. It doesn't make any sense to me that she would be. We all experienced that together, and she is part of the "we" that experienced that. Her other actions, like 9/11 responders bill that you mention, are evidence of that, as if she needed to provide any evidence any more than anyone else on this board does.

I think minorities often have their statements and stands interpreted in the least generous way possible, in a way that others do not. Colin Kaepernick being presumed to be against veterans, for instance, even though all the evidence shows otherwise.

To your last point, I concede my stance on this may come from a point of privilege as a white guy. My wife, a black woman, has made your last point to me about both Kaepernick and Omar. I know some are, but I'm not using this one vague phrasing as evidence that Omar doesn't care about 9/11 or it's victims. I agree that her actions speak louder than any quibbles we can have about her phrasing in one sentence. I've stated before, I think she has often been unfairly maligned. And I'd rather talk about bill than this phrase. It matters more. But I couldn't help chime in about my opinion on the phrasing.

[Kevin Seitzer]

To some of the examples that have been given as analogies, the general talking about collateral damage is using a euphemism to cover up the evil of war and his responsibility for it. Steve King in the hypothetical is minimizing the evil side of white nationalism. People in those examples are using language to minimize the consequences of something they have done wrong or the wrongs of a movement and ideology they have aligned themselves with.

That's the picture Trump is trying to paint here, that Islam is responsible for 9/11 and that Omar is trying to minimize her guilt by association.

The Jeb Bush example I think is a little more borderline. He spoke carelessly and I don't think it betrayed a lack of sympathy for victims, but some people might feel it did because they think that the typical Republican/conservative response of "thoughts and prayers" to gun violence betrays a valuing of guns over people. Perhaps analogous to the Omar speech, but if so, I would like someone to explain how? What views of Omar's does this expose? That she doesn't take the horror of 9/11 seriously? Does anyone really think that?

[Kevin Seitzer]

To your last point, I concede my stance on this may come from a point of privilege as a white guy. My wife, a black woman, has made your last point to me about both Kaepernick and Omar. I know some are, but I'm not using this one vague phrasing as evidence that Omar doesn't care about 9/11 or it's victims. I agree that her actions speak louder than any quibbles we can have about her phrasing in one sentence. I've stated before, I think she has often been unfairly maligned. And I'd rather talk about bill than this phrase. It matters more. But I couldn't help chime in about my opinion on the phrasing.

Thanks.

[Sour Masher]

I'll share a couple experiences that might explain my position on all this.

1) After 9/11 when I was pumping gas a truck pulled up with custom lettering that said "kill them all, let Allah sort them out". With a nuclear bomb symbol. Apparently this person was totally comfortable promoting this. I suspect they would not have been comfortable with a nazi symbol or a KKK sticker. But Muslims were totally open season.

2) My wife worked at a school with about third or more students with Somalian and Eritrean ethnicity. Many people kept there kids home one day when apparently someone discovered a "kill a Muslim day" post on facebook.

I have neighbors down the street and the girl looks like a mini Ilhan Omar. She is a bit younger than my kids, but they used to play a little, and she would knock on our door occasionally. It is really horrible for me to think that she and the kids at my wife's school have to put up with bullshit because they are different. and it's even worse when people won't stand up and support them because their only real representative didn't use appropriate rhetoric and composition in her attempt to stand up for them. The whole controversy is total bullshit and pisses me off more than I can describe. I don't think the people who discriminate against them much care about rhetoric, innuendo, eumpehisms, etc. And unfortunately the kids have to just understand that we are all ok with them being something less than American and making sure they know that.

I probably should have refrained from chiming in on that phrase. It really doesn't matter in relation to the sort of discrimination and bigotry you describe and the legislation she supports that others criticising her do not. I just couldn't help myself given my stance on her word choice and the lack of concession that, "ok, maybe she phrased it poorly," as an easy way to say look, let's move on to conversations that matter. Trump is the master at this. Look how much time we are spending talking about this little thing instead of the real issues? I still think it was poor phrasing, but I'm not going to spend more time arguing that point. I'd much rather learn from others what they think of the larger issue of discrimination against Muslims and about the bill extending benefits that Omar supports and some, inexplicably to me, do not.

[Sour Masher]

Maybe we can also talk about what a wonderful distraction this relatively minor issue is for Trump right when he vetoes the resolution to end US support of the Saudis war in Yemen.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Yemen is a travesty. (Was trying to type tragedy and my phone autocorrected to travesty, and I decided it was right.)