Political Style

For a minute, it seemed like politics had regained some popularity in the United States. Electoral pre-amble seems to reignite some sort of flame under the American people, yet when push comes to shove, the voter turnout is always the same. It seems every electoral year, politics falls out of style faster than FUBU. Why?

I’m not sure that I have the answer to this question in entirety, but perhaps delving into a discussion on the matter will enlighten us in some respects.

In fact, this incipit is not entirely true. We quite enjoy politics… just in a different way.
Our fascination extends beyond our brief courting of it pre-election: think Jacqueline Onassis Kennedy, Che Guevara’s face, Churchill’s cigar, Mao’s Mole, Ben Franklin’s glasses… you chose the icon. We are obsessed with the grand images of leaders of old. The politics of today are what bores us.

Why do we remember them?

In one superhero movie, the following is said “People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.” Another prevalent scholar noted “Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.”

The point is that image is everything if you want to “live forever” in the minds of the people. Batman realized that by using a costume he allowed himself to approach some form of immortality. Machiavelli’s The Prince is a manual describing which tactics to employ so that the prince might retain power. He dwells on the Prince’s image in the eyes of his people … and how to make the longest-lasting impression on them. It can be seen as a way for the prince to achieve immortality.

It seems that the image of the statesmen goes through a couple stages. The intention, as prescribed by Machiavelli, is to create a long-lasting reputation. Some do this with policy, others with physical image. However, time dictates how one appears in the annals of history. Therefore, despite their efforts, statesmen (and stateswomen) have a tendency to have a different legacy from the one they had imagined. To quote Gladiator, “How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? The warrior? The tyrant...? Or will I be the emperor who gave Rome back her true self?”

The stages:

First, there is an attempt to establish one’s self as an icon, that is a figure that is timeless, that will be remembered. (essentially the above-outlined ideas) The purpose of this is to create some type of legacy, a way to be remembered past one’s tenure as leader. Just look at the final terms of many past presidents or any King or Queen. Remember Qin Shi Huang’s Terra Cotta warriors? Or King Tut’s tomb?

Secondly, the “icon” image becomes something comparable to a costume. Consider Churchill’s cigar, Lincoln’s beard or Napoleon’s style. Were these accessories really necessary?

Lastly, as historical distance separates the present from these past characters, there is a branding stage. Yes, like marketing branding. Look at Che’s face… look at what Obama’s profile is becoming. The artist who created the now famous red white and blue Andy Warholesque pop-art campaign poster is selling his pieces for thousands of dollars. The idea is that an icon achieves something approximating logo status. Consequently, important figures are distilled into trademarks rather than ideas.

From our present vantage point, we can identify most of these historical characters. Unfortunately, they remain just iconic faces in our memories. Was Churchill a conservative or a liberal? Did you know that Napoleon was one of the first heads of state to provide Europe with a legal code? It is one of the most influential documents in the history of law. Did you know that John Fitzgerald Kennedy, America’s darling president, increased American forces in Vietnam from 800 to 16, 300 in what some historians consider the point of no-return culminating in the Vietnam war? Why then is he so popular? Because his wife was one of the most influential figures in style in the last 100 years?

In essence, my fear is that we forget what truly made these figures important. Though we undoubtedly will remember Barrack Obama as America’s first African American President, it is my fear that his promises (and presumably, or rather hopefully, his policies) will be equally recalled: multilateralism, universal healthcare, separation of state and interest groups etc. Somehow I sense that a hundred years from now, his photogenic looks and oratory skills will overshadow his actions.

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

Like Ghandi’s talisman, we should remember icons for what they represent, political persons for what they stood for.

Resurrection of the Writ: Habeas Corpus and Boumediene v. Bush

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court announced its decision regarding Boumediene v. Bush. In opposition to the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA), the court ruled that prisoners at the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities retained the right to habeas corpus. The ruling upholds the detainees’ rights to due process, making it possible for them to challenge their confinement in civilian courts.

Image source: McClatchy

Since June 12^th, opponents of the decision have flooded opinion outlets with melodramatic—and often ill-informed—editorials, amplifying the paranoias of the American public. Senator John McCain regards the ruling as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,” while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls it “a disaster, which could cost us a city.” In the right-wing media, reactions have been similarly sensational. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has called upon Senator McCain to promise legislation that would undermine the court’s decision, while CNN host, Glenn Beck, has suggested a solution of his own: “We're going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they're against us, we're going to shoot them and kill them, period.”

CNN's Glenn Beck weighs in on Supreme Court decision

On the other hand, advocates of the decision have been equally immoderate in their rejoicing. The New York Times has championed the court ruling as a “stirring defense of habeas corpus.” Other liberal media have framed Boumediene as a narrow escape that has salvaged the national character of the United States. Such rhetoric often disregards the serious political implications of the ruling. Neither extreme is prudent; in order to prepare for its possible ramifications, it is essential to consider the ruling in a sober light. While this entry does not aspire to analyse the legal technicalities of Boumediene, it will attempt to offer a few additional thoughts that may not have been audible amidst the frenzied dogmatic din.

Dissenters have opposed Boumediene for two major reasons: 1) It grants non-US citizens undue legal protection and rights and thereby endangers the American public. 2) In overruling the MCA of 2006 as an unconstitutional suspension of the habeas writ, the judiciary has challenged both executive and congressional powers, thereby overstepping its jurisdiction.

To the first point, opponents have suggested that opening US courts to “foreign enemy combatants” offers them unprecedented reign to abuse the legal system. The predominant fear is that courts will be flooded with “hundreds” of habeas corpus writs at the expense of the American taxpayer. Worse still, high-profile dissenters have propagated the paranoia that released detainees will “[return] to terrorist activities” and jeopardize national security.

With regards to there being no precedent for offering constitutional rights to non-citizens, Justice Kennedy writes in his majority opinion: "It is true that before today, the Court has never held that non-citizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of the conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history." Justice Kennedy goes on to examine whether the provisions under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 are a sufficient alternative to habeas; he concludes that they are inadequate. Although Justice Scalia argues in his dissent of Boumediene that prior to this decision, there was “no suspension of the writ [of habeas corpus],” while no explicit suspension occurred, the Military Commissions Act (2006) created a resilient legal framework that made it practically impossible for detainees to contest their imprisonment; thus, for six years, hundreds of detainees were held without trial.

Senator McCain speaks during a town hall meeting in Pemberton, NJ

Image source: Associated Press

Under the MCA, prisoners who are designated (or await designation as) “enemy combatants” do not have the right to habeas appeal. This designation is established through a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing; however, the MCA does not impose deadlines for the government to provide a hearing. Because there is no time limit, detainees can be held indefinitely without receiving a CSRT hearing. To cap it off, detainees are "legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason" prior to a CSRT hearing.

Thus, with the MCA, the Bush administration established an intractable legal knot that made it possible to detain prisoners indefinitely, essentially denying them even the most fundamental human rights. As an additional note, the claim that between 30 and 37 released detainees "return to terrorist activity" is simply false. Justice Scalia cited the statistic in his dissent; the number has since been repeated by Senator McCain, among others. A recent report by Seton Hall, however, establishes that the claim is “belied by all reliable evidence.” The report reveals that the number came from a 2007 Senate Minority Report, which in turn was based on erroneous information from the Department of Defense. (The DOD retracted its own statement in a 2007 press release.)

Regarding the second major objection, conservative commentators have proclaimed that we have reached a situation of "rule by judiciary" because the Supreme Court (the only unelected branch of government) has struck down both legislation passed by Congress and actions taken by the Executive. While it is not unusual for the Court to rule certain executive wartime powers as unconstitutional, as Ilya Somin's analysis aptly points out, "This is a nearly unprecedented situation where the Court rejected an important assertion of wartime power backed by both of the other branches of government." Nevertheless, although such occasions are rare (the last example occurred during the Civil War,) they are not unconstitutional. Indeed, the judiciary exists as an independent branch specifically to check the power of Congress and the Executive. Some opponents argue that Boumediene extends its protection too far and that amendments to the DTA would have been more prudent; however, as Justice Kennedy discusses, the DTA was too seriously flawed for minor adjustments to have been sufficient or effective.

In addition, the Court's ruling is by no means the final word. Congress retains the power to override Boumediene using the Suspension Clause. Under this clause, Congress may enact legislation that limits the right to habeas writ for specific types of detainees. Thus, by no means has the Court usurped both legislative and executive power, it has merely performed its constitutional function as a counterweight to the other branches of government.

Prisoners on the way to Guantánamo

Image source: Road to Guantanamo

As a final note, underlying the dialogue that surrounds Boumediene is the tacit notion that detainees at Guantánamo are treated as guilty until proven innocent: a principle fundamentally opposed to the spirit of numerous international human rights treaties, including the third Geneva Convention. From an ethical perspective, whether these detainees are guilty or innocent is beside the point: in addition to the provisions in Common Article Three, Article 103 of the third Geneva Convention stipulates:

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months. (Emphasis mine.)

The MCA stripped Guantánamo detainees of their right to fair trial and “prohibit[ed] detainees from citing the Geneva Conventions as a legal basis for challenging their imprisonment or for seeking civil damages for their mistreatment.” (Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2006). Far from granting undeserved rights, the Boumediene ruling restores the detainees' basic status as human beings. Although the decision is certainly broad, (and may not have been the only--or even the best--way to protect detainee rights,) it is a just baseline; although suspension legislation may still limit the rights of certain suspects, under Boumediene, all detainees begin with the basic right to habeas corpus.

Ultimately, the ruling sets an imposing precedent for future treatment of detainees; however, it demonstrates the important fact that even while protecting the nation, it is possible and therefore essential to uphold basic human rights. To lose sight of this is to lose sight of the very principles that we are attempting to protect.

- JK

p.s. After an eight-month investigation, McClatchy has just published a remarkable study of detainee treatment in Guantanamo; it includes interviews with over 66 detainees and I'd encourage anyone who's interested to read it!

"You old as f*ck. For this club, you know, not for the earth"

Bouncers haven't started barring me from clubs yet, and I do still get ID'd in a city where the legal drinking age is 18, but I've started to feel really old lately. I think it started when the cute surfer guys with the spiky hair that I was trying to chat up began talking about how excited they were to party after graduation. From high school.

I am an accidental cougar. It's bad enough to be robbing the cradle, but worse when you don't even realize it. Hey, it's all good, I'm young too right? Wrong. We old, We old as f*ck.

warning: jailbait

In a couple of years my close personal friends will legally be able to do things like cut people open and remove everything from diseased gums to livers (thank you very much, jagerbombs). The same individuals who once ran headfirst into their own chimneys and who had to be practically carried into a taxicab because their shoes were broken. And covered in vomit. My friends are (or soon, anyways) accomplished and published scientists, certified accountants, bar managers, hotel venture capitalists, actuaries and lawyers. They work for google. They are responsible for the math skills of brooklyn third graders. It's like we're real people! With real jobs! We don't take spring break, we take time off. If people screw up, death could be involved, or worse, a whole lot of money to fix that electron microscope.



I feel old, but why don't I feel like an adult yet? Maybe because I'm still essentially freeloading off my parents and my most recent personal accomplishment was going to seven bars in one night and not having a hangover. My only responsibility right now is to make enough money to pay the rent for my shared room that lacks a door and to feed and water myself without getting scurvy. And this is me in my "financially independent and thus responsible" phase because next year, whilest I may be doing more productive things with my time, I will be living entirely off my parents' dime (and apparently, dropping sick rhymes).

I am exactly the kind of person they write about in newspaper articles with titles like "Time to Leave the Nest" (Globe and Mail, Sept 14 2007) which concludes, "Those who live under parents' roofs simply because it is the easiest and most comfortable thing to do, however, must recognize that the twenties are not a prolonged adolescence. They are adults. Time to launch."

Ouch. Yes, I feel guilty for being five years and $20,000 in tuition from my high school days and not any closer to financial independence. Why must they taunt me with statistics that tell me that by the time my grandmother was my age she had already secured a husband and popped out two children? And if the media isn't guilt-tripping me about my selfish prolonged adolescence, it's making me depressed about low starting wages, quarterlife crises, the increasing costs of education, and how I'm part of the "houseless generation" who will never be able to afford a home. Apparently our generation is a bunch of underachievers. "Fewer 20-Somethings Reaching Adult Benchmarks" they proclaim (ABC News April 21 2005). "Today's 20-somethings will be the first who won't do better than their parents. A college education doesn't deliver the same promises that it once did." Well, that's just great, guys.

the promise of a college education.

But, at the same time, I don't think the idea that your 30's are the new 20's is necessarily all bad. It begs the question, well then what does that make your 20's? In response, sociologist Dr. Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania has defined a new life stage of "early adulthood." In his article "Growing Up is Harder to Do" he explains that early adulthood is not simply an extension of adolescence, unlike what the mass media would have you believe. "Young adults," as he calls us "are physically mature and often possess impressive intellectual, social and psychological skills. Nor are young people today reluctant to accept adult responsibilities. Instead, they are busy building up their educational credentials and practical skills in an ever more demanding labor market." Ha, so there, we aren't just a bunch of losers who can't make it in the real world and crumble under the pressure.

I agree with Dr. Furstenberg that rather than trying to hold the young people of our generation to the standards and timeframes of those previous, society should revise what is considered the "normal" age of full adulthood as well as the definition of "adult" itself. While in the 1950's and 60's the notion of adulthood was firmly associated with marriage and child-bearing, a 2002 study by Furstenberg indicated that Americans associated adulthood more strongly with a complete education and financial independence, whereas marriage and parenthood were regarded more as lifestyle choices as opposed to prerequisites.

While a complete education, my own home and financial independence all sound like lovely things which I would like to have one day, I accept that with constantly changing economic forces and social policies, it will take me longer to accomplish than it took my grandparents or parents. I don't consider it a handicap on my part, but simply a different time table. Adulthood is not only about having your finances in order, but also about finding purpose and identity. I know that I am very lucky to have parents who are willing and able to support me in this semi-autonomous state. I realize that it is a luxury to be able to complain about going to school for another four years and not have to worry about building up debts. From this fortunate position, I embrace my 20's, not as someone failing to be fully adult, but as someone who is working on it and enjoying the ride on the way. I realize more and more that there is a world of opportunity available to me to explore that perhaps wasn't as accessible a generation ago. I have languages to learn, seas to swim and foreign foods to eat before I commit to a mortgage. And hey, everyone could use a few extra years of irresponsible debauchery before settling down to paperwork and diapers. "Can't have a bunch of old pregnant bitches running around."


-VH

Web 2.0 and Why I Am Blogging (and why no one in China will be reading this)

Today’s world is now full of bloggers, and who would have thought I would become one. The rise of blogs has taken place rapidly, and now the internet is inundated with blogs on topics such as music, art, politics, to travel journals, to, well basically, a very public diary. Technorati tracked 112 million blogs by December 2007. Yet, this so called “blog-revolution” does amount to something more than just space on the internet. For the first time (I dare say, in history), it is possible to have your writing published and accessible for the public to read, without cost or censorship (theoretically, of course.) Granted, the publishing world did provide a means for editing out bad writing, it has become a corporate business with interests that have complicated the process of publishing writing. Now, those boundaries are slowly disappearing with the advent of blogs and the increasing accessibility of the internet. And what is more important is that you can now read the ramblings and thoughts of amateur writers such as myself.

Some call this phenomenon of self-publishing on the internet “Web 2.0”. I am using the term Web 2.0 very loosely to represent the concept behind sites like Wikipedia and Youtube, where the information available on the web is not limited to that “produced”, but rather, is contributed by everyday people, qualified or not. There is a much more in-depth discussion and definition of Web 2.0 that I won’t get into, I’m not quite tech-savvy enough. This concept of Web 2.0 is thought to increase creativity, information-sharing, and collaboration around the world. Arguably, a new process of democratization becomes possible with Web 2.0. The number of internet users throughout the world is steadily growing and internet access is trickling down populations to even reach some of the poorest (although, there is still far to go). Political opinions, ideas, and most importantly, criticisms, are being shared, not among top leaders, but by regular citizens. Audiences are expanding as more people with access to the internet can find information on almost anything around the world.

Yet, is all this just “techno-utopianist” rhetoric? Some have argued that with Web 2.0, we have achieved what is known as “you make the content, we make the money.” The fast growing pace of Web 2.0 has brought about the explosion of companies such as Google and Wikipedia, creating a whole new form of business and economics. Are these businesses, by providing “free access” to information, creating economic democracy, or are they benefitting from the free labour of ordinary citizens?

Take the example of China. China is currently one of the most exciting and interesting places in the world – it’s on the verge of becoming the most powerful country, economically, and that provides a considerable amount of political leverage. Yet, with a host of its own internal problems (Tibet, the Falun Gong, Taiwan to name a few…I could name more, it’s not like anyone in China has access to blogspot and can read this anyway, blogspot is blocked in China…), China is not without growing discontent internally, as well as political pressures externally. In the face of the rising use of the internet for purposes such as information-spreading and protest planning, China has created the Golden Shield Project (a.k.a. the Great Firewall of China) in order to provide greater censorship and inaccessibility to particularly sensitive topics on the internet. This does not work by technology alone: much of the censorship has been propagated by fear – it is not the blog poster that gets in trouble, but rather, the owner of the site in which the politically-sensitive information is posted. Here, the foreign companies such as Yahoo and Google have played a role in the censorship – they have been compliant to China’s wishes, knowingly helping the government suppress dissent. However, that is not to villainize these companies – they face very little other options to stay competitive. So, this brings us to the question: has China effectively silenced the coming of Web 2.0 (and democratization-by-internet) for the Chinese people?

computer users in asia - there are lots.

But that is not to say that the Chinese are content to sit back and watch this happen. In the past twenty years, China has experienced political stability unlike it has seen in the past century, and with it, economic growth. Whether China likes it or not, rapid economic growth has meant rapid modernization. The rates of internet growth have been uncontrollable, unlike in places like Cuba where internet censorship is partly performed through government regulation of computer access. With cheap computers and an increasing infrastructure for communication, regulating the internet will become increasingly harder. For example, almost the whole country now has access to mobile phone networks – no small feat, considering only a small percentage of Canada has good access (I struggle to get a good connection in my room in Vancouver…) Even in remote corners of China, where roads barely exist, mobile networks exist; I can attest to this through personal experience. Increasing external pressure on China’s media control may help loosen China’s grip; more likely, China’s booming computer and technology industry will increasingly find ways around China’s Golden Shield. The majority of internet users in China are young – people growing up in a post-Deng economic reform period and a post-Tiananmen period of political participation who use the internet in ways that CCP leaders barely try. Without illusions on the ability of the Chinese to express political opinion, that is not to say that some won't (and don’t already) try. And the internet will be their medium when they do. I can’t make predictions about what will happen in the future in China, but I believe that the internet is providing a forum for people to communicate in China, in ways that were not possible before, and this most definitely will have repercussions for political participation and hopefully, political freedoms, in China.

The ability to blog could have greater ramifications for someone in China than for me. But even I am slowly coming to embrace the power of Web 2.0. Sometimes we take for granted actual impact of the internet (I barely remember a life without it though I only learned how to use it around high school), and lose sight of the continuing impact it will have on the future. Does the internet provide an outlet, a form of communication that had previously not existed? I think it does. If the internet is a forum for political discussion in places like China, where such discussions are often discouraged by the government, then it’s more important now than ever, that the internet be used for discussion. And that is why I write.

- JC

Keffiyeh, Shmagh, Shemagh, Yashmag, Ghutra, Hatta, Mashada or Terrorist Scarf?

(a man wearing a Keffiyeh)

An advertisement in the US has been pulled following complaints that the scarf worn by the celebrity endorser is too closely associated with extremist videos. That would be, Dunkin Donuts pulled an ice-coffee internet ad, after Rachel Ray’s sporting of a Keffiyeh was interpreted as a symbol associated with terrorism. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin described the scarf as "a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos."

(Rachel Ray and Scarf)

In fact, the Palestinian Keffiyeh became a symbol of nationalism stemming from its use by farmers in rural Palestine who often wore it, more out of utility than as a symbol. Their tie to the land creates an obvious association that led such an accessory to symbolize this state’s nationalism.

To the extent that it can be associated with Yasser Arafat and his policies, the scarf can be associated with T. E. Lawrence, Orientalism and with being a tool for keeping sand out of one’s face (amongst other survival uses). Mr. Arafat was often pictured wearing the scarf, in what became somewhat of a trademark. T. E. Lawrence, also known as “Lawrence of Arabia”, champion of the Arab revolt, helped unite a fractured Arab people and oust their Ottoman occupiers. The image of him wearing a Keffiyeh has been etched into history along side his remarkable accomplishments in uniting and leading the Arab force in revolt. The Orientalist movement also depicted this scarf in its artwork, influencing Europeans’ perception of the Near East for centuries, whether for good or for bad. (The scholar Edward Said has written extensively about the adverse effects of Orientalism on the West’s past perception of the region) In essence, the link between terrorism and a scarf is comparable to that between a neck-tie and capitalism. Although one can try to relate a neck-tie to CEOs etc. generally, it is really only an accessory used by most men (and some women) for the purpose of formal dressing, and in fact embodies to no degree an economic ideology.

(T. E. Lawrence)

Like Che’s face on the front of countless T-shirts, the Keffiyeh has become more than a symbol. Unlike how jihad actually means “struggle” but in the Western world has come to be associated entirely with religious war, the Keffiyeh has become occidentally incorporated as a fashion statement. It is unlikely that most of those wearing the sometimes ubiquitous t-shirt actually have an appreciation or understanding of the revolutionary movements Che led in Cuba, Bolivia and the Congo, his education in medicine, the influence a motorcycle trip around South America had on him, or the influence he had on such people as Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and Jean-Paul Sartre. He was not only a symbol of a socialist revolution, but one of the most important figures of the last 60 years. To be honest, I don’t really know why so many people chose to wear his face on their chest. It can be assumed that he would not be in acquiescence with the marketing tool that one photograph has become. But I digress…

(Che, pre-revolutionary)

The importance of emphasizing the Keffiyeh in all of its significances is how it fails to evoke terrorism. Whether its traditional implications are recognized, its usage by important historical figures appreciated or there is a complete disassociation and its value as an apolitical fashion accessory appreciated, it is simple-minded, and dare I say, uninformed or ignorant to reduce the scarf to a symbol of terrorism.

Equating the scarf with terrorism, or rather insisting upon stemming its use as it evokes terrorism, suggests a level of causality that this scarf has somehow led to terrorism. Further, Pants were probably also a “regular adornment” of terrorists in the above-mentioned videos; I suppose their propensity for causing terrorism is yet to be determined. Yet, the purpose served of the Keffiyeh in this instance, that of nationalism, is the same purpose a flag serves when it flies above an army base in Iraq, or in the form of a pin on the President’s lapel when he delivers a speech. It represents a set of values. Though a flag, or similar symbols such as the scarf, does manifest a state’s policies, such a symbol used by discordants can sever this manifestation. The flag loses its nationalist connection.

Though symbols can change their significance as with the abovementioned Che example, it takes a plurality of people. A symbol’s meaning is held with this majority, a group that has an understanding of the meaning behind such symbols, and a realization of when such a symbol is erroneously used, such as by discordants. When the majority opinion changes, the symbol changes it’s meaning. Until that moment, a misused symbol becomes a glaring error or beacon of misrepresentation rather than something furthering a minority cause, as in the example of terrorism. Consequently, rather than retain this inaccurate beacon status, the flag or scarf retains its original significance.

The Dunkin Donuts reaction to the Keffiyeh does not accurately reflect the scarf as it is seen by a plurality of people. (Especially amongst those who use it) Instead, it represents a major misinterpretation and a complete wrongful association of a symbol to a cause.

In sum, Dunkin Donuts should be more concerned about the deaths it causes from its own products than those it causes from the support it supposedly rallies behind Rachel Ray’s scarf. Who is the real terrorist? Don’t answer that…


-HG


(click here for more information from the BBC)