April 18, 2008
Soft bigotry of low expectationsNews
Stephen Hadley is the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. By all accounts he’s an intelligent man who should know the difference between Nepal and Tibet. So why did he, while talking to Stephanopoulos last Sunday about whether Bush would attend the Olympic opening ceremony, say Nepal every single time he meant to say Tibet? [via Saja]
That’s seven times that he gets the basic geographic issue at hand completely wrong. Here are just a few examples from a transcript:
“The way to deal with the issue of Nepal is not by some — a statement that you’re not going to the opening ceremonies and say, therefore, I checked the Nepal box… What he’s doing on Nepal is what we think the international community ought to be doing, which is approaching the Chinese privately through diplomatic channels and sending a very firm message of concern for human rights, a concern for what’s happening in Nepal, urging the Chinese government to understand that it is in their interest to reach out to representatives of the Dalai Lama, and to show, while the whole world is watching China, that they are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect. There is an opportunity here.” [Link]
Meanwhile, Stephanopoulos, who showed himself so adept at playing gotcha politics on Wednesday night didn’t correct even Hadley once.
Yes, Hadley is clearly referring to Tibet in context, and the two countries are in the same region. But if the national security advisor was to confuse Saudi Arabia with Iran, that would be news worthy, wouldn’t it? How about China and North Korea?
However, when he confuses Nepal (an independent country emerging from a dictatorship by a Hindu ruler) with Tibet (a conquered country under a communist dictatorship), the NYT buries the mistake at the very end of their article, mentioning in passing that the White House has confirmed that Hadley “misspoke”.
ennis on April 18, 2008 09:16 AM in News, Sports · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Pretty pathetic. What I find most insulting about such things (more than the ignorance of the people supposedly leading us) is that more prominent American politicians feel entitled to make these mistakes...there's an air of callous arrogance about them, as if they don't really have to know such info in the first place, and it's ok that they don't. Even when they apologize, they make it seem like it isn't really a big deal.
Maybe Stephenapolous knows that Hadley loves America, and is willing to cut him some slack.
Forgive me for being obtuse, but I'm not sure what your emphasis on "loves" was meant to convey. Do you mind elaborating?
Personally, I think Hadley must have been watching an Eddie Murphy movie before he went on air: Viva Nepal.
They are both "exotic" and attract hippies. Maybe that's why :)
H
Your use of Hindu seems quite superfluous to me in this context. Soft bigotry?
In the recent debate between Clinton and Obama, Stephanapolous asked Obama about his church pastor, "Do you believe Rev. Wright loves America?" And in an evening of embarrasments, this was a pretty big one.
George Strepthroatapolis needs to buy that condo in Florida. He was once media hot shot. Now he'll do anything to stay in the limelight. Pathetic!
OMG!!111!!! Obama doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran.
The comments make sense. Nepal is suppressing the rights of its citizens at the because of China. Peaceful pro-Tibet protests are being suppressed brutally in Nepal, Nepal was considering closing mount everest expeditions to prevent possible Tibetan protests, Maoists are gaining in strength, etc. Given the perceived need to accommodate the Maoists, it is better to approach China privately rather than making a possibly counterproductive gesture such as boycotting the Olympics.
The brilliant hadley sees the bigger picture much better than the media. So he is subtly pointing out that instead of concentrating on Tibet, where the international community has little influence, we must concentrate on the next adjoining country under threat from China. viz. Nepal where the Chinese backed Maoists have gained considerable power and have put democracy at risk and where we need to act now.
(It's not just a river in Egypt.)
BTW. This is old news (last week's news)
Huffington post pointed this gaffe straight away with exactly the same take ennis has. A couple of things though:
It is untrue to say that George Stephanopoulos gave Hadley a break. Stephanopoulos was grilling Hadley. See the video fully, Hadley was evading the question (would Dubya attend the opening ceremonies) and Stephanopoulos was pressing the issue again and again. George Stephanopoulos just did not notice/care that Nepal was being used instead of Tibet
Hardly surprising, when the President and half the liberal media does not even know (or makes an effort to know) how to say the name of the country the US has invaded correctly despite so many years having passed. It's all due to arrogance and no one even talks about this arrogance.
You certainly have the title of this post right...
Divya said:
The King was not just Hindu as an individual, Hinduism formed the justification for his rule, the basis for his divine right to govern:
The groups that protested the abolition of the monarchy did so on religious grounds, and used Sadhus as their standard bearers.
Dizzy Desi said:
He gave him a break on a fairly basic error, one far more fundamental than the minor nits he was picking as a moderator of the democratic debate. The contrast was striking.
As to this being old news, the taped segment is from this most recently Sunday, so I still consider it this week's news. The quoted transcript is attributed to Huffington, I'm not trying to pass it off as my own work.
Given that I've been in the office past midnight this week, I'm happy that I was able to get to this story at all. I post stories when I am able to get to them. If you feel they're stale by then (the Huffington Post article is from Monday) then feel free to skip them.
Ennis: props for the hard-hitting title. Well-played, sir.
And pairing the word Hindu with Nepal may be important, even if as a mere aide-memoire. Nepal used to be famous for being the 'only Hindu Kingdom in the world.' And Tibet, of course, has always been inextricably linked to its particular form of Buddhism and the ubiquitous presence of Dalai Lama in international affairs. So confusing Tibet with Nepal is still more egregious in light of their very distinct (and declarative) religious affiliations.
This is a trait that seems rather particular to the US. One of my friends was trying to convince me that certain words not native to English are so frequently used in (American) English that the American pronunciation is an acceptable (correct) pronunciation. When I told her that, in fact, it would be the wrong pronunciation, she balked - as if the idea that Americans can get anything wrong in their pronunciation of anything 'foreign' was intolerable. Interestingly, her own first name is the name of a province in France, which has been Americanized (rather, atrociously, IMO as compared to the native French pronunciation). It's interesting - people even get upset - even offended - when the topic comes up that, in general, nobody in America pronounces my name properly (or even notices, much less bothers to try).
Ali G's espousing on what if we were to confuse Iran with Iraq ;)
It was nothing short of pathetic and inept. But then what else is to be expected of Team Bush ?
Ennis - It doesn't help to throw the hindu book in response to this objection. *All* hindus are incarnations of Shiva or Vishnu or however the heck you want to put it. The divinity here is irrelevant to absolutely everything. This is completely different from the European, Egyptian or other pagan kings, for example, who alone had a divine right to rule. Moreover, in hindu puja ceremonies, divinity is recognized in parents, teachers, young girls, or whoever it is the occasion happens to be honoring, not just kings. So a king is not specially divine, even if he is divine.
It is disingenuous to use the religion argument, whether sadhus participated or not. When it comes to clinging to power, people resort to all sorts of ways and means and will produce any argument. The fact of the matter is that there was nothing hindu about his rule. It is unfortunately also a fact that people translate western notions of religion onto hindu customs, even where no parallels can be drawn. This is understandable in a way, but objectionable when "hindu dictator" is used in the same logical sense as "communist dictator".
How does an educated person confuse Tibet with Nepal?
The answer was given eloquently by Miss Teen USA of South Carolina last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Now many Nepali did not agree to these claims, and that's why the Monarchy has been abolished. But the justification of his rule was clearly both spiritual and secular in nature, with the two intertwined.
Ennis: >>The king alone was special....The King was above all others
I don't have a problem with using the "Hindu" label: I have an issue with using the "dictator" label.
It is erroneous to interchange the words "king" and "dictator". They have completely different connotations in common English language. A king is usually from a lineage, and has historical, cultural and religious justifications. A dictator has none of these. Hitler was not a king of Germany just as Guru Nanak/Gobind Singh were not dictators of Punjab. Kings almost always had a strict set of rules to live and govern by, whereas a dictator makes up his own rules.
Nepal (an independent country emerging from a dictatorship by a Hindu ruler) should read
Nepal (an independent country emerging from a kingdom by a Hindu ruler)
As for the topic of discussion, it is sad but not surprising to know that Hadley can't differentiate between the two countries. But then, why should he be able to? He's the national security advisor, and neither Nepal or Tibet is a national security threat to America.
M. Nam
Moornam, the King was an absolute Monarch, and so, to me, a dictator.
>>the King was an absolute Monarch, and so, to me, a dictator.
Almost all kings have been absolute monarchs! Ashoka, the Dictator? Please.
M. Nam
KXB, thanks.
19 · Divya said
I understand the point you are making here, but then, we must also ask why Krishna and Rama, both considered avatars of Vishnu (and not in the same way philosophy would argue we all are), are such popular deities among Hindus? They are considered special, God on earth. The fact is the vast majority of people who identify with Hinduism rarely identify with its more strictly Advaitic facets when it comes to such matters, whether or not their background stems from that tradition or not. Popular Hinduism is a soup of many different traditions and philosophical schools. That's why I think it's fair to say that the Nepalese King was a Hindu Ruler...The local traditions and popular views defined him as such, just as devotees of certain religious leaders in India consider them incarnations of God (again, not in the more abstract Advaitic sense).
Regardless, isn't it important that Tibet and Nepal were both religious states, but of different religions (which Hadley should have known as well)?
11 · DizzyDesi said
Huffington post pointed this gaffe straight away with exactly the same take ennis has. A couple of things though:
It is untrue to say that George Stephanopoulos gave Hadley a break. Stephanopoulos was grilling Hadley. See the video fully, Hadley was evading the question (would Dubya attend the opening ceremonies) and Stephanopoulos was pressing the issue again and again. George Stephanopoulos just did not notice/care that Nepal was being used instead of Tibet
hadley mentioned nepal no fewer than three times, and this part of the larger problem. the fact that stephanopolous did not notice/care to correct him speaks volumes about the general preparedness of the interviewer.
my previous comment came out wrong, and looks like a direct quote: here's the issue:
hadley mentioned nepal no fewer than three times, and this part of the larger problem. the fact that stephanopolous did not notice/care to correct him speaks volumes about the general preparedness of the interviewer.
The National Security Advisor serves on the National Security Council, most often in a leading role. The National Security Council is responsible for considering both national security and foreign policy (how large a role it plays in foreign policy historically has depended on each particular administration and President). Of course Hadley should be able to differentiate between Nepal and Tibet.
Ennis - As I said, he was a king, a decrepit one, on his last legs, willing to use any argument to cling to power. For you to make this out to be a hindu issue is just as ignorant as Stepen Hadley.
Tell me if you see the bigotry in the following:
"The Prime Minister of India is a wuss"
"The Prime Minister of India is a Sikh wuss"
"Contrary to stereotype, the Prime Minsiter of India is Sikh wuss"
The use of the word Sikh in the last sentence is relevant, correct and not bigoted, whereas use of the word Sikh in the middle sentence is bigoted. That's all I'm trying to point out. As you put it with respect to Hadley "By all accounts he’s an intelligent man who should know the difference". Pulling textbook arguments out of your hat does not make it okay, imo.
No more from me on this now.
I think its pretty clear Mr Snuffleupagus doesn't know the differnce between Nepal and Tibet either.
In that case the words 'king'/'queen'(and a few others) might as well be replaced by 'dictator'.
Divya,
Quite commendable and impressive.
It seems like nobody here wants to consider the chance that he just made a mistake. I mean, I've never made a mistake myself. Like, never in my whole life. But with the National Security Adviser of the United States speaking on live TV (admittedly with a 60 second time buffer or whatever it is) one ought to admit the possibility. And with these kinds of mental name switchings, you never make the mistake just once, you do it for the full soundbite, any number of times it comes up. Not that I can confirm that personally, since, again, it has never happened to me personally, or anything. Ever. And on the subject, I've always known exactly where Transkei was on a map, and Ruanda-Burundi, and specks though they might be, I've always been able to place Carribean Isles, like St Kitts, bang on the spot, lat, long, degree and minute, and on any map at any scale. So again, not that I would know how people make mistakes like this.
Chachaji,
Nepal = Mt. Everest/Sherpas/Hippies
Tibet = Dalai Lama/Shangri-La
Not famous enuf even by pop-culti standards for Hadley?
chachaji, with all due respect, there is the matter here of professional competence. when you're the NSA, the least you can do is be prepared to deal with questions over the latest brouhaha. and the china olympics matter is no small potato. such gaffes undermine credibility, and therefore, at the very least a respectful and humble damage control procedure ought to be initiated. sweeping these things under the carpet further irks bruised egos.
secondly, there is the grudge that Stephanopoulos let him off too lightly, which would not be the case if countries with 'higher standing' (in contrast to Nepal and Tibet) with the US government were involved.
Neale,
Nepal = word I saw in many of my briefs recently.
Tibet = word that I saw in many of my briefs recently.
Nepal and Tibet = countries I tasked a subordinate with coordinating medium-term US policy toward, and commissioned a long-range study on.
(speculating, of course)
Both are in South Asia (Tibet is a bit of a stretch). China is involved with both, in different ways. From the National Security Adviser's point of view, this is the critical issue that links the two, and could lead to mental name switchings, as it seems to have.
36 · chachaji said
Call me an Obama-style elitist, but I prefer governmental officials who actually know more than me (and the average person) to those who don't, especially when it comes to important geopolitical issues. I think you're cutting him slack that would be far more acceptable were he not a National Security Adviser.
Wow, embarrassing. Yeah, big no no. Gotta get these pesky terms right, although, if I were some paranoid I'd say, he didn't correct him on purpose! To make him look bad! Kidding, I'm not a paranoid. Yet.
*As an aside, you couldn't pay me a million dollars to go into public life. Imagine having everything, everything, about your life dissected.
**Anyhoo, if you go into public life, expect to be knocked around a little and don't whine about it. This can apply to more than just Hadley, especially this week....after, you know, a certain debate. Go for the big prize, expect the big fight.
NYC Akshay -
The elitist thing bandied about recently isn't about who knows more. Of course, government officials often know more about certain topics because it is, after all, their job to do so. The problem is if the government official thinks his/her priorities, as a person WHO KNOWS MORE, are the real, true priorities rather than those of the voter. The power is to come up from the people, not down from on-high, so to speak. It's an attitude thing, not a knowledge thing.
"Stephen Hadley is the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. By all accounts he’s an intelligent man who should know the difference between Nepal and Tibet"
You're making a big assumption saying he's intelligent.
bess, that would be a fair characterization - standard vs correct (though most countries use the correct pronunciation as their standard). to your larger point, yes - mispronunciation is annoying (and belies to a smaller extent the hierarchy of countries/cultures) - repeated confusion by an NSA officer who was clearly prepared to discuss the issue on a national show really is shameful - i think port expressed it well @ 39
thanks! as someone who went through my entire primary education years with exactly one person around in school to pronounce my name properly (can't really try changing the pronunciation for people who have been pronouncing it a certain way since we were in kindergarten), my higher education years and work life have revealed an equal incapability to pronounce it accurately. i'm so used to it, really - but very thankful and impressed when people take the time and effort to at least try (not even succeed) to pronounce it properly. i will buy you a drink at the next meet-up in exchange for what will surely be a gruelling (j/k) how-to-pronounce-ak's-real-name session.Umm, these guys are still counting dominoes falling on the map in Asia--hence the pre-occupation with the incidents in Nepal.
Bess, AK - the reason I raised this was not because I would expect the ordinary American citizen to know how to say Iraq, I feel happy if they just know where it is. For that matter I don't expect even Bush or someone on Fox news to know, all these folks are beyond that. However, when someone like Terry Gross on Fresh Air says it incorrectly on NPR - a station catering to the educated and mostly liberal crowd, and worse while interviewing a journo from the UK who says it correctly, and she is an interviewer I quite respect - or journalists from the Post or the NY Times on an interview or on some liberal show or other on TV, then I really get bugged since these are all supposed to be open minded and intelligent folks.
Or for that matter, often we hear that Americans are not liked in the middle east or some other parts but how often have we seen a frank discussion in the media here on why that is so and whether American foreign policy is arrogant or not. Because not many people even realize that it is. Or for that matter, a few days back the ambassador from Zimbabwe says on NPR that he does not care what Bush says since in his diplomatic interactions, Bush behaves arrogantly and treats diplomats from other countries inappropriately.
In the end it does not matter because being the most powerful nation in the world one can do all this without consequences. However, if it bothers someone, then there is a start to seeing what the problem is. I am not a hater, but these things do bother me sometimes.
i also think discussion of the population at large is relevant because many politicians and others who influence or present politics are unable to get over this basic arrogance/ignorance, despite their professional capacities. i agree, it is one thing to do it as a layperson, but when you are in a position where you expect people to listen to your words and/or be influenced by them, you better bloody well make sure you don't make such gaffes - because if you expect people to listen to what you have to say, it's rational for them to question your credibility in light of such errors.
Well, saying I don't expect this from Bush is hardly the same as saying I don't expect this from any other leaders. Bush is an exception. And yes, my point is exactly what you say, I expect a lot more from the leaders and the media in the context of our discussion and instead I see none of it from a majority. Of all the Presidential candidates, none except Ron Paul was willing to criticize the overall strategy of US foreign policy (not just Iraq) and look where he got. But then, politicians have a lot more constraints, but what about the arrogance in the media. What explains that? Maybe they are catering to the masses, and the masses wont know more till the media tells them more and thus we have a deadlock. But that is exactly counter to the duties of the media, and thus what we have is a spineless and intellectually incurious media that tells us trifle little. As for the masses, they only know what the politicians and the media feeds them. Thus for now, we will continue hearing Nepal for Tibet and whatever the heck eye-rack is! At least Obama knows how to say Pakistan - small mercies.
Hey Anna, Sandhya, What happened to "poetry friday".
I can get all this political b.s. on any other blog site too.
C'mon ladies, dole out your weekly doses of intellectual upliftment.
Chachaji,
Are you afraid you will be deported if you criticize Hadley?
I don't know how intelligent he is, but back in the day, Stephen Hadley was an excellent swing bowler.
Hey hey - yellow card! Disagree, but don't be disagreeable. Argue the position, not the person. You know this, Neale.
Wow, chachaji, you are real learned-like. Mine just say "Fruit of the Loom".
Right. That's why I wear boxers.
54 · Blog_Prowler said
why is that directed only to the ladies?
'cause .. the whole goddam whitehouse is filled with shitheads!
24 · Ennis said
It is not a matter of what he is to you. Dictatorship and Monarchy are two completely different systems of governance.
You seem to be familiar with the term "absolute monarch", and that would have been the right term to use.
Are they? I've never seen that distinction honored. A dictator with a crown on his head is an absolute monarch.
44 · MD said
The Obama reference was a poor joke on my part, nothing serious.
Being an absolute monarch today when almost the entire world has democracy in some form or the other is not the same as in Ashoka's time when that was pretty much the only system around. I guess that's what Ennis is talking about?
I don't know that this bigotry is particularly soft. I mean, it bears out the "can't tell them apart" thing in a dangerous manner, like John McCain easily confusing Shia with Sunni. On a scale of ethnic evaluation, maybe like if Pranab Mukherjee kept calling Sweden Finland.
49 · bess said
Huh. How about that. I always thought it was "burMINGum," like, you know, land of the mingers. Learn something new every day, tell you hwut.
Ennis,
I am from Nepal, and am baffled and disturbed about the "Hindu dictator" bit.
1. 80% of my country's population is Hindu; anybody coming to power (including Prachanda) will most likely be Hindu. Are you going to start using the sobriquet "Hindu" on everyone who has ruled Nepal previously and henceforth, Prachanda, the "Hindu Maoist", Koirala, the "Hindu democrat", anyone. The religion seems pretty redundant to mention.
2. On your rebuttal, let me point out that the Shahs ruled Nepal for 400 years and over time they created this halo around being descended from Vishnu. They had come to power by winning over 50-odd kingdoms. Their descent from Vishnu was not the basis for their rise to power. The myth was never very strong in the country except among a few royalists, and was never strong enough to sustain them.
3. The word "dictator", I would think you agree, has negative (brutal, repressive et al) connotations. Using it on all absolute monarchs across history would therefore necessitate the corollary that human civilization has been seriously sad almost throughout.
In my view, anybody in Gyanendra's shoes would have mostly taken the same action steps as he did. Did he have a choice? He came to throne facing an insurgency threatening to split the nation, a group of politicians who were diabolical and opportunistic (at some point I had lost count the number of PMs we had). For him, the only way out was to assume power and try to get the country out of this mess. That he failed, and popular opinion (tarnished by alleged involvement in Birendra's death) having turned against him, we are now free to cast him as a villain.
To put it briefly, he was thrust on to a mess of a situation with nobody ready to help him, he tried to do something about it, and failed, and quietly bowed out. It might currently be fashionable to castigate him, but would request you to desist from doing so quickly.
I use it in a descriptive sense - a ruler unconstrained by a constitution. You can be a benign dictator or a malign one, but the point is that such a ruler is (a) non-democratic and (b) non-constitutional.
I was trying to draw attention to the fact that neither country (Tibet nor Nepal) is governed democratically, nor do its citizens have civil-rights protected by a constitution.
I agree that it was never the only basis of their rule, and that at the end it was insufficient to keep him as an absolute monarch, but Nepal is widely known as being the world's only remaining Hindu monarchy.
Not really. A king is chosen/loved by the people, a dictator is a self-appointed/usually hated ruler.
I have friends from Nepal and they have no doubt monarchy worked well in Nepal and the people loved the king. According to them maoists are a bunch of hooligans using the democratic platform for personal gains and not for equality.
brain hiccough most likely. Ever see that Ali G interview with Pat Buchanan, whom I dislike but accept as very bright, where he uses a Jedi mind trick to get him to replace WMD with BLT ?
This is probably sampling error. The Maoists are thugs but just like Indian Naxals they required extremely corrupt/malignant rule in order to gain sympathy. If the King is "loved" it is because the bar is set low (i.e. he doesn't commit matricide/patricide/fratricide and speed around Kathmandu running people over). The Maoists are no good but it was desperation that brought the Nepalese to this point. I'm happy that the Bhutanese king will spare his people this fate by introducing elements of democracy.
57 · Ennis said
Sorry, got carried away.
"The only way I can get sleep at night is by imagining a secret cabal of highly competent pupprtmasters who are handing the important decisions while our elected politicians debate flag burning and the definition of marriage..."
-Scott Adams
Erdd! More proof that Stephanopoulos is an incompetent, smug, dum arse!
What we really need is the opinion of a knowledgeable clinical psychiatrist. Are repeated verbal slips like this a well known phenomenon, like deja-vu and Freudian slips and my wife saying, for a period of a year or so, Hong Kong every time she meant Tokyo ...And she has lived in both cities!
And I contend that my lousy punctuation is some mental phenomenon of great scientific interest too.
66 · Amrita said
John McCain was lying on purpose. He repeated the same lie three or four times before it was reported by the press. Neoconservatives at the Pentagon are preparing the ground for an attack on Iran. Bush spokesholes lied about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud before the attack on Iraq. Until recently many Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. That's democracy. You can fool most of the people most of the time.