Soft bigotry of low expectations

Stephen Hadley is the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. By all accounts he’s an intelligent man who should know the difference between Nepal and Tibet. So why did he, while talking to Stephanopoulos last Sunday about whether Bush would attend the Olympic opening ceremony, say Nepal every single time he meant to say Tibet? [via Saja]

<

p>

That’s seven times that he gets the basic geographic issue at hand completely wrong. Here are just a few examples from a transcript:

“The way to deal with the issue of Nepal is not by some — a statement that you’re not going to the opening ceremonies and say, therefore, I checked the Nepal box… What he’s doing on Nepal is what we think the international community ought to be doing, which is approaching the Chinese privately through diplomatic channels and sending a very firm message of concern for human rights, a concern for what’s happening in Nepal, urging the Chinese government to understand that it is in their interest to reach out to representatives of the Dalai Lama, and to show, while the whole world is watching China, that they are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect. There is an opportunity here.” [Link]

Meanwhile, Stephanopoulos, who showed himself so adept at playing gotcha politics on Wednesday night didn’t correct even Hadley once.

Yes, Hadley is clearly referring to Tibet in context, and the two countries are in the same region. But if the national security advisor was to confuse Saudi Arabia with Iran, that would be news worthy, wouldn’t it? How about China and North Korea?

However, when he confuses Nepal (an independent country emerging from a dictatorship by a Hindu ruler) with Tibet (a conquered country under a communist dictatorship), the NYT buries the mistake at the very end of their article, mentioning in passing that the White House has confirmed that Hadley “misspoke”.

78 thoughts on “Soft bigotry of low expectations

  1. Pretty pathetic. What I find most insulting about such things (more than the ignorance of the people supposedly leading us) is that more prominent American politicians feel entitled to make these mistakes…there’s an air of callous arrogance about them, as if they don’t really have to know such info in the first place, and it’s ok that they don’t. Even when they apologize, they make it seem like it isn’t really a big deal.

  2. Maybe Stephenapolous knows that Hadley loves America, and is willing to cut him some slack.

  3. Maybe Stephenapolous knows that Hadley loves America, and is willing to cut him some slack.

    Forgive me for being obtuse, but I’m not sure what your emphasis on “loves” was meant to convey. Do you mind elaborating?

    Personally, I think Hadley must have been watching an Eddie Murphy movie before he went on air: Viva Nepal.

  4. H

    owever, when he confuses Nepal (an independent country emerging from a dictatorship by a Hindu ruler) with Tibet (a conquered country under a communist dictatorship),

    Your use of Hindu seems quite superfluous to me in this context. Soft bigotry?

  5. Your use of Hindu seems quite superfluous to me in this context. Soft bigotry?

    Is Vatican a Christian dictatorship?? OOps my bad … You are not allowed to say that.

    Maybe Stephenapolous knows that Hadley loves America, and is willing to cut him some slack.

    And may be Hadley will marry America unlike …. :-))

  6. Forgive me for being obtuse, but I’m not sure what your emphasis on “loves” was meant to convey. Do you mind elaborating?

    In the recent debate between Clinton and Obama, Stephanapolous asked Obama about his church pastor, “Do you believe Rev. Wright loves America?” And in an evening of embarrasments, this was a pretty big one.

  7. George Strepthroatapolis needs to buy that condo in Florida. He was once media hot shot. Now he’ll do anything to stay in the limelight. Pathetic!

  8. The comments make sense. Nepal is suppressing the rights of its citizens at the because of China. Peaceful pro-Tibet protests are being suppressed brutally in Nepal, Nepal was considering closing mount everest expeditions to prevent possible Tibetan protests, Maoists are gaining in strength, etc. Given the perceived need to accommodate the Maoists, it is better to approach China privately rather than making a possibly counterproductive gesture such as boycotting the Olympics.

    The brilliant hadley sees the bigger picture much better than the media. So he is subtly pointing out that instead of concentrating on Tibet, where the international community has little influence, we must concentrate on the next adjoining country under threat from China. viz. Nepal where the Chinese backed Maoists have gained considerable power and have put democracy at risk and where we need to act now.

    (It’s not just a river in Egypt.)

  9. BTW. This is old news (last week’s news)

    Huffington post pointed this gaffe straight away with exactly the same take ennis has. A couple of things though:

    It is untrue to say that George Stephanopoulos gave Hadley a break. Stephanopoulos was grilling Hadley. See the video fully, Hadley was evading the question (would Dubya attend the opening ceremonies) and Stephanopoulos was pressing the issue again and again. George Stephanopoulos just did not notice/care that Nepal was being used instead of Tibet

  10. Hardly surprising, when the President and half the liberal media does not even know (or makes an effort to know) how to say the name of the country the US has invaded correctly despite so many years having passed. It’s all due to arrogance and no one even talks about this arrogance.

  11. Divya said:

    Your use of Hindu seems quite superfluous to me in this context. Soft bigotry?

    The King was not just Hindu as an individual, Hinduism formed the justification for his rule, the basis for his divine right to govern:

    Gyanendra heads a dynasty that dates to 1769, when a regional ruler led an army down from the hills and conquered the ancient city of Katmandu. He established a line of kings that have been traditionally considered reincarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu, to be venerated by their subjects. [Link]

    The groups that protested the abolition of the monarchy did so on religious grounds, and used Sadhus as their standard bearers.

    Dizzy Desi said:

    It is untrue to say that George Stephanopoulos gave Hadley a break. Stephanopoulos was grilling Hadley. See the video fully, Hadley was evading the question (would Dubya attend the opening ceremonies) and Stephanopoulos was pressing the issue again and again. George Stephanopoulos just did not notice/care that Nepal was being used instead of Tibet

    He gave him a break on a fairly basic error, one far more fundamental than the minor nits he was picking as a moderator of the democratic debate. The contrast was striking.

    As to this being old news, the taped segment is from this most recently Sunday, so I still consider it this week’s news. The quoted transcript is attributed to Huffington, I’m not trying to pass it off as my own work.

    Given that I’ve been in the office past midnight this week, I’m happy that I was able to get to this story at all. I post stories when I am able to get to them. If you feel they’re stale by then (the Huffington Post article is from Monday) then feel free to skip them.

  12. Ennis: props for the hard-hitting title. Well-played, sir. And pairing the word Hindu with Nepal may be important, even if as a mere aide-memoire. Nepal used to be famous for being the ‘only Hindu Kingdom in the world.’ And Tibet, of course, has always been inextricably linked to its particular form of Buddhism and the ubiquitous presence of Dalai Lama in international affairs. So confusing Tibet with Nepal is still more egregious in light of their very distinct (and declarative) religious affiliations.

  13. Hardly surprising, when the President and half the liberal media does not even know (or makes an effort to know) how to say the name of the country the US has invaded correctly despite so many years having passed. It’s all due to arrogance and no one even talks about this arrogance.

    This is a trait that seems rather particular to the US. One of my friends was trying to convince me that certain words not native to English are so frequently used in (American) English that the American pronunciation is an acceptable (correct) pronunciation. When I told her that, in fact, it would be the wrong pronunciation, she balked – as if the idea that Americans can get anything wrong in their pronunciation of anything ‘foreign’ was intolerable. Interestingly, her own first name is the name of a province in France, which has been Americanized (rather, atrociously, IMO as compared to the native French pronunciation). It’s interesting – people even get upset – even offended – when the topic comes up that, in general, nobody in America pronounces my name properly (or even notices, much less bothers to try).

  14. But if the national security advisor was to confuse Saudi Arabia with Iran, that would be news worthy, wouldn’t it? How about China and North Korea?

    Ali G’s espousing on what if we were to confuse Iran with Iraq 😉

  15. Ennis – It doesn’t help to throw the hindu book in response to this objection. All hindus are incarnations of Shiva or Vishnu or however the heck you want to put it. The divinity here is irrelevant to absolutely everything. This is completely different from the European, Egyptian or other pagan kings, for example, who alone had a divine right to rule. Moreover, in hindu puja ceremonies, divinity is recognized in parents, teachers, young girls, or whoever it is the occasion happens to be honoring, not just kings. So a king is not specially divine, even if he is divine.

    It is disingenuous to use the religion argument, whether sadhus participated or not. When it comes to clinging to power, people resort to all sorts of ways and means and will produce any argument. The fact of the matter is that there was nothing hindu about his rule. It is unfortunately also a fact that people translate western notions of religion onto hindu customs, even where no parallels can be drawn. This is understandable in a way, but objectionable when “hindu dictator” is used in the same logical sense as “communist dictator”.

  16. Ennis – It doesn’t help to throw the hindu book in response to this objection. *All* hindus are incarnations of Shiva or Vishnu or however the heck you want to put it. The divinity here is irrelevant to absolutely everything. This is completely different from the European, Egyptian or other pagan kings, for example, who alone had a divine right to rule. Moreover, in hindu puja ceremonies, divinity is recognized in parents, teachers, young girls, or whoever it is the occasion happens to be honoring, not just kings. So a king is not specially divine, even if he is divine.

    Yet it was used in exactly that way in Nepal. It was not the case that everybody had the right to rule b/c they were all divine. The king alone was special. This is why religious groups objected to the monarchy being dismantled and why Nepal so long resisted democratization. The King was above all others because of his specific religious role, very much like Europe or Egypt.

  17. For the ardent monarchist, honorary aide-de-camp to the king, retired general Bharat Kesher Simha, King Gyanendra can do no wrong. “It’s the divine power, he has got it,” he insists. “Why didn’t I become a king? Why did he become a king? “Unless you have some power given to you by the god, you cannot be a king. He is courageous, he is bold, he is wise.” … Gen Simha is president of the World Hindu Federation, an international body based in Nepal aiming at Hindu pre-eminence worldwide. They regard the Nepalese king as emperor of all Hindus. [Link]

    Now many Nepali did not agree to these claims, and that’s why the Monarchy has been abolished. But the justification of his rule was clearly both spiritual and secular in nature, with the two intertwined.

  18. Ennis: >>The king alone was special….The King was above all others

    I don’t have a problem with using the “Hindu” label: I have an issue with using the “dictator” label.

    It is erroneous to interchange the words “king” and “dictator”. They have completely different connotations in common English language. A king is usually from a lineage, and has historical, cultural and religious justifications. A dictator has none of these. Hitler was not a king of Germany just as Guru Nanak/Gobind Singh were not dictators of Punjab. Kings almost always had a strict set of rules to live and govern by, whereas a dictator makes up his own rules.

    Nepal (an independent country emerging from a dictatorship by a Hindu ruler) should read Nepal (an independent country emerging from a kingdom by a Hindu ruler)

    As for the topic of discussion, it is sad but not surprising to know that Hadley can’t differentiate between the two countries. But then, why should he be able to? He’s the national security advisor, and neither Nepal or Tibet is a national security threat to America.

    M. Nam

  19. the King was an absolute Monarch, and so, to me, a dictator.

    Almost all kings have been absolute monarchs! Ashoka, the Dictator? Please.

    M. Nam

  20. 19 · Divya said

    Ennis – It doesn’t help to throw the hindu book in response to this objection. *All* hindus are incarnations of Shiva or Vishnu or however the heck you want to put it. The divinity here is irrelevant to absolutely everything. This is completely different from the European, Egyptian or other pagan kings, for example, who alone had a divine right to rule. Moreover, in hindu puja ceremonies, divinity is recognized in parents, teachers, young girls, or whoever it is the occasion happens to be honoring, not just kings. So a king is not specially divine, even if he is divine.

    I understand the point you are making here, but then, we must also ask why Krishna and Rama, both considered avatars of Vishnu (and not in the same way philosophy would argue we all are), are such popular deities among Hindus? They are considered special, God on earth. The fact is the vast majority of people who identify with Hinduism rarely identify with its more strictly Advaitic facets when it comes to such matters, whether or not their background stems from that tradition or not. Popular Hinduism is a soup of many different traditions and philosophical schools. That’s why I think it’s fair to say that the Nepalese King was a Hindu Ruler…The local traditions and popular views defined him as such, just as devotees of certain religious leaders in India consider them incarnations of God (again, not in the more abstract Advaitic sense).

    Regardless, isn’t it important that Tibet and Nepal were both religious states, but of different religions (which Hadley should have known as well)?

  21. 11 · DizzyDesi said

    BTW. This is old news (last week’s news) Huffington post pointed this gaffe straight away with exactly the same take ennis has. A couple of things though: It is untrue to say that George Stephanopoulos gave Hadley a break. Stephanopoulos was grilling Hadley. See the video fully, Hadley was evading the question (would Dubya attend the opening ceremonies) and Stephanopoulos was pressing the issue again and again. George Stephanopoulos just did not notice/care that Nepal was being used instead of Tibet

    hadley mentioned nepal no fewer than three times, and this part of the larger problem. the fact that stephanopolous did not notice/care to correct him speaks volumes about the general preparedness of the interviewer.

  22. my previous comment came out wrong, and looks like a direct quote: here’s the issue:

    hadley mentioned nepal no fewer than three times, and this part of the larger problem. the fact that stephanopolous did not notice/care to correct him speaks volumes about the general preparedness of the interviewer.

  23. But then, why should he be able to? He’s the national security advisor, and neither Nepal or Tibet is a national security threat to America.

    The National Security Advisor serves on the National Security Council, most often in a leading role. The National Security Council is responsible for considering both national security and foreign policy (how large a role it plays in foreign policy historically has depended on each particular administration and President). Of course Hadley should be able to differentiate between Nepal and Tibet.

  24. Ennis – As I said, he was a king, a decrepit one, on his last legs, willing to use any argument to cling to power. For you to make this out to be a hindu issue is just as ignorant as Stepen Hadley.

    Tell me if you see the bigotry in the following:

    “The Prime Minister of India is a wuss”

    “The Prime Minister of India is a Sikh wuss”

    “Contrary to stereotype, the Prime Minsiter of India is Sikh wuss”

    The use of the word Sikh in the last sentence is relevant, correct and not bigoted, whereas use of the word Sikh in the middle sentence is bigoted. That’s all I’m trying to point out. As you put it with respect to Hadley “By all accounts he’s an intelligent man who should know the difference”. Pulling textbook arguments out of your hat does not make it okay, imo.

    No more from me on this now.

  25. I think its pretty clear Mr Snuffleupagus doesn’t know the differnce between Nepal and Tibet either.

  26. Moornam, the King was an absolute Monarch, and so, to me, a dictator.

    In that case the words ‘king’/’queen'(and a few others) might as well be replaced by ‘dictator’.

  27. It’s interesting – people even get upset – even offended – when the topic comes up that, in general, nobody in America pronounces my name properly (or even notices, much less bothers to try).

    It’s “ack” right? Don’t hate me.

    One of my friends was trying to convince me that certain words not native to English are so frequently used in (American) English that the American pronunciation is an acceptable (correct) pronunciation. When I told her that, in fact, it would be the wrong pronunciation, she balked – as if the idea that Americans can get anything wrong in their pronunciation of anything ‘foreign’ was intolerable.

    I know this sounds like typical American arrogance but I think it comes from a place of actually not wanting to appear arrogant or a know-it-all. To Americanize the pronunciation of a foreign word makes it less intimidating – possible even democratic. I can’t wait to see what all the American correspondents/news/govt. types settle on for the pronunciation of “Medvedyev”. Not exactly “Pootin” is it?

  28. It seems like nobody here wants to consider the chance that he just made a mistake. I mean, I’ve never made a mistake myself. Like, never in my whole life. But with the National Security Adviser of the United States speaking on live TV (admittedly with a 60 second time buffer or whatever it is) one ought to admit the possibility. And with these kinds of mental name switchings, you never make the mistake just once, you do it for the full soundbite, any number of times it comes up. Not that I can confirm that personally, since, again, it has never happened to me personally, or anything. Ever. And on the subject, I’ve always known exactly where Transkei was on a map, and Ruanda-Burundi, and specks though they might be, I’ve always been able to place Carribean Isles, like St Kitts, bang on the spot, lat, long, degree and minute, and on any map at any scale. So again, not that I would know how people make mistakes like this.

  29. It’s “ack” right? Don’t hate me.

    lol, but ‘ak’ comprises my first and middle initials. and since they refer to the roman/english letters of my names, i would hope that nobody would have a problem in this country pronouncing ‘ak’ 🙂 no, but my real name seems much ‘harder’ for people to pronounce – and i admit that certain of these sounds are hard to pronounce such that they might not roll off the average american’s tongue very easily in the first hearing, but almost everybody pronounces my name incorrectly in exactly the same way – and many even add an ‘n’ to my name. it’s both amusing and annoying at the same time. when i stop to think about it, it’s interesting that many people assume whatever pronunciation they think is appropriate before even hearing me say my own name – e.g. resumes or e-mails – one would think (at least i do) that if an uncommon name comes along that might have non-american/unfamiliar origins that it would pertinent to ask, in the first instance, how to pronounce, rather than to assume they know how to pronounce.

    I know this sounds like typical American arrogance but I think it comes from a place of actually not wanting to appear arrogant or a know-it-all. To Americanize the pronunciation of a foreign word makes it less intimidating – possible even democratic. I can’t wait to see what all the American correspondents/news/govt. types settle on for the pronunciation of “Medvedyev”. Not exactly “Pootin” is it?

    well, bess, you may be right in some instances, but this particular friend was trying to get out of making herself look wrong in any possible way (i can be blunt when it comes to these things – there was definitely more than a hint of defensiveness when i said that the pronunciation would be considered wrong). i guess what annoys me is this presumption that the american pronunciation is correct – to this day, and in the midst of a second war in iraq, very few long-time politicians, newscasters, or american people in general have changed their pronunciation of iraq. which also goes to akshay nyc’s point @ 2 that if the issue/country/name is insignificant to begin with, why bother with proper pronunciation?

  30. Chachaji, Nepal = Mt. Everest/Sherpas/Hippies Tibet = Dalai Lama/Shangri-La

    Not famous enuf even by pop-culti standards for Hadley?

  31. chachaji, with all due respect, there is the matter here of professional competence. when you’re the NSA, the least you can do is be prepared to deal with questions over the latest brouhaha. and the china olympics matter is no small potato. such gaffes undermine credibility, and therefore, at the very least a respectful and humble damage control procedure ought to be initiated. sweeping these things under the carpet further irks bruised egos. secondly, there is the grudge that Stephanopoulos let him off too lightly, which would not be the case if countries with ‘higher standing’ (in contrast to Nepal and Tibet) with the US government were involved.

  32. Neale,

    Nepal = word I saw in many of my briefs recently. Tibet = word that I saw in many of my briefs recently.

    Nepal and Tibet = countries I tasked a subordinate with coordinating medium-term US policy toward, and commissioned a long-range study on. (speculating, of course)

    Both are in South Asia (Tibet is a bit of a stretch). China is involved with both, in different ways. From the National Security Adviser’s point of view, this is the critical issue that links the two, and could lead to mental name switchings, as it seems to have.

  33. BTW. This is old news (last week’s news) Huffington post pointed this gaffe straight away with exactly the same take ennis has. A couple of things though:

    It would be old news if it had been reported widely and discussed to death. Not all of us read the Huffington Post on a regular basis.

  34. 36 · chachaji said

    It seems like nobody here wants to consider the chance that he just made a mistake. I mean, I’ve never made a mistake myself. Like, never in my whole life. But with the National Security Adviser of the United States speaking on live TV (admittedly with a 60 second time buffer or whatever it is) one ought to admit the possibility. And with these kinds of mental name switchings, you never make the mistake just once, you do it for the full soundbite, any number of times it comes up. Not that I can confirm that personally, since, again, it has never happened to me personally, or anything. Ever. And on the subject, I’ve always known exactly where Transkei was on a map, and Ruanda-Burundi, and specks though they might be, I’ve always been able to place Carribean Isles, like St Kitts, bang on the spot, lat, long, degree and minute, and on any map at any scale. So again, not that I would know how people make mistakes like this.

    Call me an Obama-style elitist, but I prefer governmental officials who actually know more than me (and the average person) to those who don’t, especially when it comes to important geopolitical issues. I think you’re cutting him slack that would be far more acceptable were he not a National Security Adviser.

  35. Wow, embarrassing. Yeah, big no no. Gotta get these pesky terms right, although, if I were some paranoid I’d say, he didn’t correct him on purpose! To make him look bad! Kidding, I’m not a paranoid. Yet.

    *As an aside, you couldn’t pay me a million dollars to go into public life. Imagine having everything, everything, about your life dissected.

    **Anyhoo, if you go into public life, expect to be knocked around a little and don’t whine about it. This can apply to more than just Hadley, especially this week….after, you know, a certain debate. Go for the big prize, expect the big fight.

  36. NYC Akshay

    The elitist thing bandied about recently isn’t about who knows more. Of course, government officials often know more about certain topics because it is, after all, their job to do so. The problem is if the government official thinks his/her priorities, as a person WHO KNOWS MORE, are the real, true priorities rather than those of the voter. The power is to come up from the people, not down from on-high, so to speak. It’s an attitude thing, not a knowledge thing.

  37. i guess what annoys me is this presumption that the american pronunciation is correct – to this day, and in the midst of a second war in iraq, very few long-time politicians, newscasters, or american people in general have changed their pronunciation of iraq.

    It sounds like your friend is confusing correct with standard. BTW in the U.S., I only ever hear NPR types say “ee-rock”. I need more aquaintances like you, ak. I’d say your name correctly too. But is the confusing of two countries the equivalent of saying “ih-rock” as opposed to “ee-rock”? I can see how it seems arrogant but really it’s just plain ignorance. Poor Hadley he only had one chance to get it wrong, some would have forgiven a slip once, but he decided to get it wrong continuously. Shameful.

  38. “Stephen Hadley is the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. By all accounts he’s an intelligent man who should know the difference between Nepal and Tibet”

    You’re making a big assumption saying he’s intelligent.

  39. bess, that would be a fair characterization – standard vs correct (though most countries use the correct pronunciation as their standard). to your larger point, yes – mispronunciation is annoying (and belies to a smaller extent the hierarchy of countries/cultures) – repeated confusion by an NSA officer who was clearly prepared to discuss the issue on a national show really is shameful – i think port expressed it well @ 39

    I need more aquaintances like you, ak. I’d say your name correctly too.

    thanks! as someone who went through my entire primary education years with exactly one person around in school to pronounce my name properly (can’t really try changing the pronunciation for people who have been pronouncing it a certain way since we were in kindergarten), my higher education years and work life have revealed an equal incapability to pronounce it accurately. i’m so used to it, really – but very thankful and impressed when people take the time and effort to at least try (not even succeed) to pronounce it properly. i will buy you a drink at the next meet-up in exchange for what will surely be a gruelling (j/k) how-to-pronounce-ak’s-real-name session.

  40. Umm, these guys are still counting dominoes falling on the map in Asia–hence the pre-occupation with the incidents in Nepal.

  41. (though most countries use the correct pronunciation as their standard).

    It would seem that the Brits don’t get that Birmingham is pronounced “birm ing HAM”, like they’ve never heard of Alabama. Ha!

    i will buy you a drink at the next meet-up in exchange for what will surely be a gruelling (j/k) how-to-pronounce-ak’s-real-name session.

    I’m feeling confident! So confident that if I don’t get it right on the first try, your next Hayward 5000 is on me, ak, sister.

  42. It would seem that the Brits don’t get that Birmingham is pronounced “birm ing HAM”, like they’ve never heard of Alabama. Ha!

    touche. i was actually thinking of the brits when i wrote the ‘most’ bit – fancy a ki-BAB anyone?

    I’m feeling confident! So confident that if I don’t get it right on the first try, your next Hayward 5000 is on me, ak, sister.

    thanks, bess – i look forward to it. but as you might know from my posts on SM, g&t is my drink of choice (and despite its colonial overtones, bombay sapphire will do for the ‘g’ portion :))