The truth is that the hidden agendas in the western media are so entrenched and widespread, it's mind-boggling!
I'm talking about the fact that some people who make the news are referred to as 'tribesmen' - as in Somali tribesman - and others by their official title - Queen of England - and others by their nationality - French. This has been scratching at me for a while now.
What am I?
Do I qualify as a tribeswoman, or...no, not a queen, darem a national. The question then becomes (leaving out queens and stuff): what is the difference between a tribesman(woman) and a national. Take Somalis, for example. Since all of them are referred to as tribesmen (sic), it becomes confusing to the viewer/listener which side you are referring to. Why don't they speak of the Somali Left and Somali Right, as they do in Britain?
My main point being that the use of 'tribesman' has several implications. It generally places the person definitely 'out-there', oriental (read Said's take on this) and not 'one of us developed ones'. It creates a fairly vivid image of someone brutal, potentially dangerous, definitely troublesome. It further tinges the picture with overtones of poorly educated, well armed, poor, and radical. That's what I see when the word is usually accompanied by a photograph of a man brandishing an assault weapon. Why? Does this mean that we (everyone who is not labelled a tribesman or tribeslady - I like that one), we should fear the tribesmen?
Typical Somalian news images
Consider who uses this terminology. 'Nuff said.
Bear with me as I go through some of the steps of my argument, or idea-gnawing:
American tribesman?
I think by now my point becomes abundantly clear. The term 'tribesman' is MEANT to be a slur, an epithet.
It is specifically used by the Western press to create fear and distrust of all the 'other' and is racist as well as religiously biased as well as capitalist.
 |
| Typical image of tribesmen |
I'm talking about the fact that some people who make the news are referred to as 'tribesmen' - as in Somali tribesman - and others by their official title - Queen of England - and others by their nationality - French. This has been scratching at me for a while now.
What am I?
Do I qualify as a tribeswoman, or...no, not a queen, darem a national. The question then becomes (leaving out queens and stuff): what is the difference between a tribesman(woman) and a national. Take Somalis, for example. Since all of them are referred to as tribesmen (sic), it becomes confusing to the viewer/listener which side you are referring to. Why don't they speak of the Somali Left and Somali Right, as they do in Britain?
My main point being that the use of 'tribesman' has several implications. It generally places the person definitely 'out-there', oriental (read Said's take on this) and not 'one of us developed ones'. It creates a fairly vivid image of someone brutal, potentially dangerous, definitely troublesome. It further tinges the picture with overtones of poorly educated, well armed, poor, and radical. That's what I see when the word is usually accompanied by a photograph of a man brandishing an assault weapon. Why? Does this mean that we (everyone who is not labelled a tribesman or tribeslady - I like that one), we should fear the tribesmen?
Typical Somalian news images
Consider who uses this terminology. 'Nuff said.
Bear with me as I go through some of the steps of my argument, or idea-gnawing:
- Who would be referred to as 'tribesmen'? Offhand I could only come up with the afore-mentioned Somalis, Maasai, and several (not all, please note) Africans ethnicities; Native Americans (not usually First Nations Canadians, or are they too?); Australian aborigines; South American Indians; Filipinos; Fidjians, Kurds, Mongolians ... is there a pattern showing here?
- Okay, so, given the obvious darker spectrum of skin tone in the above, is that the criterium? It doesn't seem to be the only one, since dark-skinned Londoners are not referred to as British tribesmen, although the odd Scotsman might be (tee-hee - injoke, my paternal heritage is Scottish).
- So, if skintone is not the only criterium, could it have to do with more equatorial regions being more conducive to tribesman-formation? But then, what about Mongolians and Inuit? No - that is not the explanation.
- Could it have something to do with referring to rural, not urban? This seems quite possible, but then I am rural and have been for 35 years, rural within a small rural country (Namibia). But nobody calls me tribeswoman. [In fact they also don't call me Professor or doctor, which I am, but insist on Mrs. Oi vey.] But I digress. The point is that rural doesn't work too well if you think about a Native American clan chief - a tribesman making a press statement - who lives in the city lincoln, Nebraska, is a lawyer, and only visits the reserve occasionally to see family. He is not rural and knows next to nothing about cattle, horses or grain.
- I'm starting to struggle here. Ethnicity and culture. That must be it. If the Omaha chieftain speaks to represent his tribe, then he's a tribesman. It also encompasses being indigenous, so I think I've got something here, except ... why don't I read about Tribeswoman(lady?) Angela Merkel, who is I'm sure, ethnically, culturally indigenous German? Then too, the Greek leaders of the new anti-immigrant party should also be Greek tribesmen speaking up in parliament. Also what about Bill Clinton, American Arkansas tribesman, or David Cameron, English tribesman?
American tribesman?
I think by now my point becomes abundantly clear. The term 'tribesman' is MEANT to be a slur, an epithet.
It is specifically used by the Western press to create fear and distrust of all the 'other' and is racist as well as religiously biased as well as capitalist.
My question: Why is this never challenged by the moral racism-watchers?
No comments:
Post a Comment