Home > Obama’s Major Gaffe in Cairo / By Heinrich Mencken

Obama’s Major Gaffe in Cairo / By Heinrich Mencken

by Open-Publishing - Sunday 7 June 2009
5 comments

Religions-Beliefs Governments USA

Nobody caught this in the Western media—or the world media in general.

That is because those who have had a good grounding in general history in the mainstream media, and in the wider public, are few and far between, and because the mainstream media, and the popular conscience are conditioned by the short-term memory of the 24-hour news cycle.

I’m referring to a major, major gaffe in Obama’s Cairo speech that concerns the history of Muslims in Spain. I quote:

"Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition."

Holy crap!!! When I heard the POTUS bracket the history of Islam in Spain within the period of the Spanish Inquisition (by use of the adverb "during"), I nearly choked on my granola!

That was so wrong, uh, where do I begin???

OK, indulge me: The period of Muslim rule in Spain goes from its early 8th-century Muslim conquest (around 711 A.D.) and ends with the fall of Córdoba to Christian forces in 1236-in the early 13th-century. The last Moors (and I might add, non-converted Moors and Jews) were expelled from Granada (the last Islamic redoubt in Spain) by Ferdinand and Isabela in 1492. That is history—a little over five-hundred years of tolerance.

The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, began under Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478, and would not end until 1834!!! There was no "tolerance" in Spain under the Spanish Inquisition, as is well known. (Please see Mel Brooks’ History of the World, Part I. OK, I’m joking, but you can also peruse any non-satirical source and come to the same conclusion.

On the contrary, the expulsion of the last non-converted Muslims and Jews (conversos) from Spain in 1492 was a crying shame on a par with the separation of Amerindian children from their parents in North America, Aboriginal children from their parents in Australia or the (very current) deportation of Latin American parents, and custody of their children by the state in the U.S.

It was that bad. There was no tolerance under the Spanish Inquisition.

We all love the suave, tall, dark, and handsome man and his beautiful wife from Chicago. And we all wish him well. But:

(1) He is still prosecuting an unjust, unwarrented occupation in Iraq;

(2) He is still shamelessly and cowardly carrying out bombardments of villages in Afghanistan with so-called "drones"—unmanned aerial vehicles—trebling the hatred of the Islamic world, and the world in general, against the U.S., Britain and Israel;

(3) He has expanded the U.S.’s "GWOT" (Global War on Terror) by bombing in Pakistan.

International Law forbids nations from carrying out "collective punishment." As I like to illustrate for my friends, I posit the possibility my brother, his wife and children are knifed to death in Chicago.

Much as I would like to strafe Chicago with cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions to avenge my brother, his wife and children’s brutal murders, it would be against international law—and common sense.

The great American novelist/social critic Gore Vidal said the same, alluding to his experience in Italy, when he said that the US’s bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11 was akin to the Italian government going after the Sicilian Mafia by bombing Palermo. (Italy, instead, used all of the tools of the law to go after the Mafia, and did not bomb Palermo).

I know not much time has elapsed between the beginning of his presidency (January 21, 2009), and that it may perhaps be to soon to judge Obama’s effectiveness as a president. But I am disappointed with:

(1) His bailing out of the banksters, insurance companies, and auto-manufacturers—according to Naomi Klein, "the greatest heist in monetary history";

(2) His refusal to consider a single-payer alternative to the ghoulish, US health care establishment;

(3) His refusal to release new pictures of the grisly torture in Abu Ghraib under the disingenuous pretext that that would endanger US troops—in the wrong place in the first place!;

(4) His refusal to go after the criminals in the former administration—under the disingenuous pretext that would be "dwelling on the past instead of moving on;"

Etc.

I like Obama a lot. He is very personable. Very suave. Very intelligent. He speaks English. What can I say?

But let’s remember, he ain’t Jesus or Mohamed or Buddha. Ecce homo, warts and all, please!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html

Forum posts

  • H Mencken-
    Why keep reiterating your like for Obama? You are falling into a trap—you are (rightfully) pointing out his MANY faults—you do not need to balance this with paltry statements of "liking" him—by doing so you are negating your very valid points!!! You have watered down your arguments with this drivel of "liking". Is this due to fear? Stand up for what you believe in, don’d be so wishy-washy. That is a turn off.

    • I am truly sorry you are turned off. But perhaps what I am driving at is that so far with Obama it has been all form and no substance.

      People want to believe him. They elected him to put an end to the Bush years, and he appears to be their continuation and expansion.

      No, I am not afraid to say what I think. It’s just that I so hoped it would be different and it isn’t: it’s same s***t, different administration.

      I’m actually very angry, upset, and disillusioned, so don’t go impugning my integrity or my cullions.

      Verstehest du?

  • Well written; excellent points. I’ll add: the main problem with Obama is that he arrived at a given point in time when expectations for true change are high but there is no grand strategy or serious appetite on the part of the people for true change. Exhibit A: single-payer Healthcare. In essence, the people, who are in general fed up with the insurance companies, aren’t savvy enough to imagine Healthcare without their dominant influence.

    Likewise, the people aren’t imaginative enough to see a new world, one without the "War on Terror" because deep down, well, they’re still frightened the militants are going to come over and take control of our malls, turn our hookers into saints, and ban hip-hop on the radio.

    The American public — a rather doltish unreflective group — is not prepared for change, or for a truly enlightened democracy for that matter. That doesn’t get Cheney, the Neocons, or Obama off the hook. Each in their own way has perpetuated the evils of this corporate hegemony, which has become neo-imperialistic, corrupt to the core, and on Wall Street a bunch of conniving sharks who haven’t yet acknowledged the damage all that Credit Default snake oil wrought on the world’s banking systems.

    What’s wrong in a nutshell? A lack of truth. A lack of accurate and comprehensive reportage, a lack of critical thinking, a lack of understanding of what is lacking.

    To be fair, Obama cited a veritable Catch 22 clause when he ran for office. He insisted the people have to not only join him but move him to provide the changes that are needed. And that was clever, for, at least on paper, it’s still a democracy. But in the end he ain’t going anywhere beyond the acceptable limits if the people aren’t coming along. And right now they’re woefully unprepared to come along.

    They’re too busy immersed in meaningless endeavors, chasing two low paying jobs because they weren’t interested enough years ago in pursuing fair labor practices, inevsting in oil rather than struggling to get off it, buying big ass cars because they’re in a hurry to drive away from their woes. No, change ain’t here and it ain’t soon going to come to a life near you.

    • SATAN (impatiently) to NEW-COMER: The trouble with you Chicago people is that you think you are the best people down here, whereas you are merely the most numerous.

      Mark Twain in Pudd’head Wilson’s New Calendar

    • The human race is a race of cowards.

      Mark Twain, Eruption