Trump’s dangerous language
As a meeting California last week, President Donald Trump crossed an important line when he described some immigrants as animals. When he said “these aren’t people, these are animals” he was using the kind of language that has been used throughout history to dehumanize a group of people. It’s called eliminationist rhetoric which is a policy or belief that a certain group should be expelled or eliminated. It’s nothing new and it’s always dangerous.
Prior to sending Japanese Americans to internment camps during WWII, the U.S. government engaged in a propaganda effort to dehumanize them. They were depicted in pictures and in written rhetoric as having fangs and goblin-like features, being rat-like and inhuman animals.
During the Holocaust, Jews were called animals and parasites of humanity in Nazi propaganda.
In the 90’s in Rwanda, before and during the genocide, statecontrolled media continually referred to the Tutsi as cockroaches. At the same time in Bosnia Muslims were being described in the press as pseudo humans.
Dehumanization is a necessary precondition for sustained human rights violations. It is considered one of the official stages of genocide. Typically members of the “other” group are equated with diseases, vermin, insects or animals. It is part of white supremacist language as well as other hate groups, of which there are currently 954 operating within the United States. These hate groups are organized by ideology, including anti-immigrant, anti LGBT, antimuslim, neo-nazi and the KKK.
This was not the first time that President Trump used classic dehumanizing speech when talking about immigrants. He has called the California sanctuary laws a “ridiculous crime infested and breeding concept”. Instilling fear about a group of people as “breeders” has also been used throughout history.
Dehumanization is made worse when there is not a free press. While the United States does still technically have a free press, it has been under attack by the current administration while at the same time there are fewer and fewer independent news sources. If information is controlled in a society it is easier to fan the flames of hatred and discrimination.
Another common feature of the major human rights violations in history is some type of mass deportation. Currently in the U.S. there are numerous groups of people who are either banned from entering the country or who are being systematically detained or deported. If these groups of people are presented in the media as less-thanhuman then it is easier for society to become complacent about their deportation or to engage in active hate-based activities against people in these groups. There are now confirmed plans to being separating children from their parents at the southand ern border when these families attempt to enter the U.S.
The 24 hour news cycle in the country right now is lurching from one crisis or salacious story to another. It is so remarkable that the president’s comments from earlier in the week calling immigrants “animals” have gotten very little coverage. On social media, when his behavior has been discussed, there is a debate going on about whether or not he really called immigrants “animals” or if he only meant this dehumanizing word for immigrants who are suspected of being gang members. Is one scenario really better than the other? Is there any condition under which it is appropriate for the president of the United States to be using hate speech?
While it is impossible to follow all of the events that need following domestically and internationally, we cannot ignore this dehumanization that is happening with increasing frequency. It is up to all of us to figure out a way to sound the alarm about the danger that such language poses for our civil society, particularly when it is coming from the president.
Ann Petrila is a Professor of the Practice at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work and is the Director of Global Practice Bosnia, an internship program in Bosnia focusing on human rights in a post-conflict region.