McCully 1

The United States Racist Regression in Rhetoric

According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, talking is described as the act of

expressing or exchanging ideas by means of spoken words. If only it was that simple. In reality,

a copious amount of the meaning that is gleaned by these interpersonal exchanges rests within

the subtext and connotations of what is being said; in other words, almost nothing we say is

processed by the people we are communicating with to mean the literal dictionary definition.

Because we cannot see the behind the scenes processing done by the person we are

communicating with when we are speaking, we can never be sure exactly what impact our words

have, or what it may mean to them. We can see this most specifically and harmfully outlined in

regards to racial discourse within post-9/11 American society, where it seems as though every

non-white racial or ethnic tag comes with its own set of destructive stereotypes that arise both

intentionally and non-intentionally on the part of the speaker.

Atticus Lishs post-9/11 and post-financial crisis novel Preparation for the Next Life

overwhelms readers with the amount of racialized language within the novel. One of the things

that is initially apparent to readers is the hyper-attention that is paid to the ethnic and racial

background of minor characters within the book; almost every single page has a barrage of

racialized observations, some more blatant than others. Often, the racial and ethnic tags are

offered gratuitously, It was early and the gates were down on some of the stores, except the

bodega that a Pakistani ranThe Casino bus waited by the bodega and the Chinese with their

hands clasped behind their backs like Deng Xiaoping waited to board it (Lish, 278). These

details are provided for readers as though they are as benign as the color of the sky, yet they hold
 McCully 2

more weight within the novel as a whole. Among other messages within the novel, Lish is

painting a picture of post-9/11 New York city for readers, spotlighting the obsession Americans

have of picking those who are perceived as other out of a crowd which oftentimes means they

are simply not white.

Lish presents these racialized observations and conversations consistently throughout all

of the protagonists points of view within the novel, which serves to further complicate for

readers the concept of racial discourse as a whole. For readers, these racial and ethnic indications

evoke larger questions: Where do these xenophobic and racist notions that are so prevalent in our

society stem from? Who uses this racialized language and for what purpose? How does this

discourse affect those whom it seeks to target and isolate?

The origin of this rhetoric is something that is partially tackled and explored by Sarah

Hill, an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies at Western Michigan

University, in her scholarly article Purity and Danger on the U.S. Mexico Border, 1991-1994

published by Duke University Press in the Fall of 2006. Within this article, Hill specifically

discusses the diction that surrounds the conversation about the border between the United States

and Mexico, specifically how this discourse both characterizes and marginalizes the people on

either side of the border. She explores the links between the inception of the stereotypes and

associations with specific legislation and surrounding media coverage and corresponding

statements made by politicians and public officials. Hill explains that while NAFTA created the

initial association between the Mexico side of the border and pollution / unclean environments, it

was the tightening of border security that first applied the association of uncleanliness to the

Mexican people themselves, portraying dirt as something that is inherent to being Mexican. Hill

writes:
 McCully 3

More than a decade later, environmental concerns about the U.S.-Mexico border have

receded into the background, while concerns about illegal immigration and global

terrorism have taken center stage Examining the discursive construction of the border

environment in the 1990s, especially through the medias reporting on NAFTA, offers

some clues as to why the urgency of thinking about the border environment in the

contemporary catalog of American dangers and concerns has diminished considerably. It

seems plausible to conclude that environmental concerns have faded at least in part

because the environment was never truly the focus of popular opposition; rather, it stood

in for, albeit sometimes inadvertently, the belief that the Mexican immigrant was the real

source of pollution.

(Hill, 778).

In other words, the racist rhetoric regarding Mexican immigrants, and eventually

Mexican people as a whole, ultimately stemmed from the top of the United States (the media and

politicians) and trickled down into the minds of the citizens, influencing indeterminately how the

United States people thought about the Mexican people.

As time went on and the United States-Mexico border continued to be a media and

political hot topic in regards to national security, Hill explains we began to see a new rhetoric

based around water and inundation imagery which further fortified the negative association

between the Mexican people and something unpleasant in the minds of Americans. On the

impact of water imagery, Hill writes:

 McCully 4

The second effect of the recurring water imagery in immigration stories is that this trope

has helped to characterize what is often described as a battle against immigrants as a

struggle against nature. In other words, water imagery suggests that immigrants possess a

natural essence that threatens American culture and civilization.

(Hill, 785).

This discourse in regards to immigration was only intensified in the aftermath of 9/11

within the United States, stemming from the heightened national security in response to the

terrorist attacks in New York City. The harmful language used in the legislation following 9/11,

including the implications behind the term illegal alien was the figurehead of the xenophobic

American notions; the ideal that a person could be inherently illegal, wrong, and other

spearheaded later xenophobic, and more specifically islamophobia campaigns. An example of

this is the 2003 See Something, Say Something campaign implemented by the New York

Metropolitan Transit Authority in an effort to garner citizens help in catching and responding to

suspicious behavior that could be the tendrils of a terrorist attack. Writer and Deputy Director of

the NYS Immigration Action Fund Anu Joshi discusses the racist undertones behind this

campaign in her 2017 article published in The Huffington Post titled The Dangers of See

Something, Say Something. Joshi writes:

Apparently the task of identifying national security threats now falls on all of our

shoulders. Unfortunately, we dont seem to be very good at it. Experience has shown that

this crowd-sourcing of surveillance ensures that it is not behavior or activity that is

identified as suspicious, but rather skin color, religious markers, language, and other
 McCully 5

signs of difference. Individuals and families are coded as suspicious regardless of their

activity. Its stereotypes passing as national security policy.

(Joshi, huffingtonpost.com).

Both Hill and Joshis messages point to the larger issue that is the normalization of

scrutinizing those around us based on their perceived racial identity. In regards to the question of

where the prevalent racist and xenophobic discourse originates in our society, it is not hard to

trace the roots back to our government and media as the source. By portraying Mexican border

subjects as dirty within the media, citizens think that it is okay to perceive people using those

terms and that there is nothing wrong with talking about them in those terms. Our own President

Trump recently referred to Mexican citizens as bad hombres when discussing the United

States-Mexico border. Politicians and media outlets set the precedent for what is allowable

within our countrys discourse, and in the case of undocumented immigrants, we have seen this

have a detrimental affect on the United States overall perception of any group that is perceived

as other.

Jimmy Turner, a character in Lishs novel, embodies everything that tends to come to

mind when one thinks of a racist. Jimmy is a white supremacist who goes much further than

harboring prejudices subliminally in his own mind, or even speaking them aloud to others.

Jimmy actively commits acts of violence against anyone who he feels does not read as white, and

is thus inherently inferior to him, a white male. This level of perceived security follows Jimmy

into jail, where he is welcome and accepted by a Nazi gang. Jimmy feels as though his position

as a white, male, American citizen grants him immunity from facing any real consequences for

his actions. After Jimmy sexually assaults a Chinese woman on a whim, he never once feels
 McCully 6

remorse for is actions even bragging about what he has done to his friends, mingling the story

of the assault with other violent stories. The description of the assault through Jimmys point of

view is nothing short of nauseating and disturbing for readers, which is undoubtedly the intent

behind Lishs graphic inclusion of it within the novel.

Jimmy is one horrific example of the kind of American our modern racial discourse can

create. Jimmys racism is overt and undeniable, and he is the ledger for which other Americans

compare their own racist or xenophobic thinking to. It is not uncommon for a racial slur to slip

out of someones mouth and when they are in turn met by the uncomfortable reaction of

whomever they are speaking with, they defensively pronounce, What? Im not, like, a racist or

anything! thinking that their own statements are somehow lessened in comparison to the

discourse of someone like Jimmy, a true racist. But just because subtle racist and xenophobic

language may not directly and immediately spawn violence does not mean it does not aid in the

perpetuation of a culture that condones this thinking.

Derald W. Sue, a professor of Psychology at Colombia University and scholar of the

Psychology of racism and antiracism, defines a micro-aggression as a brief and commonplace

daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that

communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.

Sue himself has also expanded this definition in his 2010 book Migroaggressions in Eveyday

Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation to include rhetoric that is offensive to the LGBTQ

community as well as women. These microaggressions are so harmful because they seem small

and meaningless, yet they participate in a racist and xenophobic culture. In the same way readers

see Lishs character, Jimmy, being overtly racist within the novel, readers can see

microaggressions put forward by Skinner and Zou Lei. In a casual conversation that takes place
 McCully 7

between the two characters when they are working out, Skinner discusses growing his hair. A

conversation that seems so innocent at first quickly adopts racist overtones as Lish writes:

And Im going to get a robe too. [Skinner]

A robe? [Zou Lei]

Yeah, like one of them long dresses. And a turban.

Oh! She said. You should get a turban.

I know, he said, I should. Gonna start praying five times a day. You know what thats

about.

Oh, yes, she said.

Im gonna pray and he brought his hands up to his face as if he were washing his face

with Gods word or Gods water and said: Allahu akbar.

Good, she said. Very good. What else you will do?

Well, Im definitely going to blow myself up. Im going to go into the Dunkin Donuts

and blow myself up and kill, like, a good ten people. All the traffic is gonna get fucked-

up for like 45 minutes. People will be late for work. And then of course Ill go to heaven

for my reward of 77 virgins.

(Lish, 220).

After the above excerpt Zou Lei goes on to flirt with Skinner, saying she will visit him in

heaven, which only further normalizes the Islamophobia that is present in the discourse.

Conversations such as these occur casually among Americans too often, and when questioned

they are written off as Im only joking! Yet, these conversations fuel racism, xenophobia,
 McCully 8

sexism, islamophobia and other damaging categories of thought within our culture which creates

marginalized groups of people who are at higher risk of incarceration and being victims of

violent crimes due to the associations within peoples minds with their racial or ethnic identity.

Just as it is easy to write off racist statements as being Not as bad as a violent racist or

Just a joke, it could be easy for readers to look at the interaction between Zou Lei and Skinner

as well as Jimmys actions and claim that this sort of thing only occurs among groups of people

who are not educated at a level to know better. While it is true that all of the three

aforementioned characters lack experience in higher education, microaggressions and racist

discourse still occurs in those spaces, although they are often perceived to be less harmful.

Senior Philosophy Major, photographer, and student athlete at St. Bonaventure University David

Andoh recently produced a body of work that outlined microaggressions that other students at

the university were a victim of on campus, by other students. Students in the photographs are

holding signs that depict the microaggression that they experienced. One of the signs, held by

Senior Sociology Major Kayla Davis, reads No, I do not have weave in my hair! implying that

someone asked this insensitive question, probably more than once. This art is so stirring to

viewers because it captures just how minute microaggressions can be, and just how ingrained

racist language is into our culture and common discourse. Moreover, it outlines that racism is not

something that is exclusive to violent white supremacists and among those who have lower

education levels; racism occurs in the places one would not expect it to in the United States, such

as on a college campus.

There is no quick answer to the question of who this discourse in our culture affects, and

how it impacts them. There is no doubt that our movement toward a global culture that is

predominately focused on capitalism, and less focused on humanity has an impact on our
 McCully 9

discourse. The emphasis on the otherness of those who are non-white, and even more intensely

non-American, is only becoming more pronounced under the leadership of President Trump. In a

New York Times article written by Charles M. Blow entitled Trump: Making America White

Again the dangers of Trumps anti-black, anti-Mexican, and islamophobic rhetoric are outlined

by expressing how Trumps goals will ultimately impact those whom he targets. Additionally,

Blows article discusses the appointment of white nationalist, Steve Bannon, as well as the

appointment of others who seem to share a likeminded approach to racism. The article discusses

specific instances by giving context and insight as Blow states:

The S.P.L.C. has written about FAIR, saying:

FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many

racist statements. Its advertisements have been rejected because of racist content. FAIRs

founder, John Tanton, has expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white

population: a goal to be achieved, presumably, by limiting the number of nonwhites who

enter the country.

Trump is making a statement that it would behoove America to heed: The America he

envisions, and is now actively constructing from his perch of power, is not an inclusive

America. It is a society driven by a racial Orwellianism that seeks to defend, elevate and

enshrine the primacy of white men and is hostile to all others.

That orange glow emanating from the man is the sun setting on Americas progress,

however slow and halting, on race and gender inclusion and equity.

(Blow, nytimes.com)
 McCully 10

The movement towards protecting and emphasizing the white feeling of security in our

country comes at the expense of putting perceived non-white members of our country and their

overall safety and socioeconomic well-being in jeopardy. Ultimately, the racism spewed by our

countrys leader will only further rock the already socioeconomically precarious groups of

people within our country and continue to be at the forefront of the racial discourse.

But this discourse goes beyond affecting only those whom it aims to hurt; it affects all of

us. This neoliberalist fueled mindset of individuality and isolation effectively creates a society

who is constantly looking down on those who are unlike them. By encouraging people to look

around them and see the qualities that make oneself and ones neighbor different we create a

society where highlighting these differences in an offensive way in our countrys conversation

becomes more and more normalized a terrifying thought for our future.

Works Cited

Andoh, David. Untitled. 2017.

 McCully 11

Blow, Charles M. "Opinion | Trump: Making America White Again." The New York Times. The New
York Times, 21 Nov. 2016. Web. 09 May 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/trump-making-america-white-again.html>.

Hill, Sarah. "Purity and Danger on the U.S-Mexico Border, 1991-1994." South Atlantic
Quarterly (2007): 777-99. Duke University Press. Web. 9 May 2017.

Joshi, Anu. "The Dangers of 'See Something, Say Something'." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Jan. 2016. Web. 09 May 2017.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anu-joshi/the-dangers-of-see-something-say-
something_b_9060958.html>.

Lish, Atticus. Preparation for the next Life. London: Oneworld Publications, 2016. Print.

Sue, Derald Wing. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. Print.