"Well, the countries are sh--holes, aren't they?"
To this pathetic attempt at defending Trump's alleged remarks, we should reply with honesty: "Well, many of these countries are in terrible shape - rife with poverty, corruption, repression, war in some cases, etc. So, I suppose you could describe them as sh--holes, but is that term necessary? Is it becoming of a president? Of a self-described Christian? Of any civilized adult? Do you want your children to grow up speaking this way?"
That aside, the context of his alleged remarks points to something far more problematic than his characteristically churlish language. To be clear, I don’t believe that referring to countries as sh—holes, in itself, demonstrates racism. Is his parlance trashy? Obviously. Is it racist? Well, we can’t know until we examine the context in which he allegedly uttered these words.
But the context doesn’t help, does it? After all, Trump doesn’t say, “Let’s rescue these people from their sh--holes by lifting our lamp beside the golden door!” Rather, he proclaims, “Keep, ancient sh--hole lands, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Keep your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free.” In doing so, he essentially equates the “sh--holes” with the peoples living there, drawing no distinction between those who would likely contribute to our society and those who would not. They’re all little sh—s to our sick and contagious president.
I’m unashamed to express this fact to my students. Am I politically biased in doing so? Only if you believe that calling countries s--holes is a Republican value.
