COMMENTARY: After Tucson...

Gabrielle Giffords

print this

By Kimmo Wilska
     
      In August 1975 my current home town Helsinki joined the ranks of places like Yalta, Vietnam, and Columbine, whose names have taken on meanings that transcend geography.
      After the signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in the Finnish capital, critics of the CSCE’s alleged validation of the post-war balance of power made comparisons between “Helsinki” and “Munich” - not the cities, but rather events that happened there that were seen as the appeasement of dictatorship.
     
On January 8th, something similar happened to my old home town, Tucson, Arizona.
      A lone gunman there killed six people, including a US Federal judge and a nine-year-old girl.
      Many more were injured, including US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Since then, expressions such as “after Tucson” and even “post-Tucson” have been popping up in the English-language media.
      In a world where scarcely a day goes by without news of even greater carnage, certain circumstances surrounding the Tucson shooting make it stand out.
     
Early reactions drew attention to the abundance of gunfire metaphors used by American right-wing pundits and politicians.
      In the recent midterm election campaign, a US map appeared on the website of former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, in which certain Congressional districts held by democrats were symbolically “targeted” with pictures of gun sights.
      The map, which had been criticised by Congresswoman Giffords during the campaign, came back to haunt Palin, as did an earlier call to her supporters: “Don’t retreat, reload”.
      During the election campaign, Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for the US Senate race in Nevada, spoke about “taking out” her Democratic opponent, and endorsed the idea of “Second Amendment remedies” (a reference to the right to bear arms as enshrined in the US Constitution) if the decisions of elected representatives fall short of expectations. She later toned down the rhetoric somewhat.
     
Possibly even more menacing than the constant gunfire imagery is a growing tendency among American right-wing commentators to depict political adversaries as actual enemies of the nation and its core values, rather than as people with whom they disagree.
      Liberal commentators who made reference to the bellicose rhetoric in connection with the Tucson shootings were denounced for unfairly blaming their political opponents for the random actions of a mentally disturbed individual.
      While there is no indication that the gunman had a coherent political agenda of any kind, the explosive rhetoric nurtured by the “Tea Party” movement and other right-wing elements nevertheless provides a context for the shooting that is very much worthy of attention, as politically inconvenient as this may be to some.
     
Arizona has received a good deal of unwelcome notoriety over the years.
      In the late 1980s, the state faced a travel boycott, prompted by the governor’s decision not to recognise the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. as an official holiday.
      Talk of a tourist boycott was revived last year with the passage of SB 1070, a state law requiring law enforcement officers to check the identity papers of those whom they suspect might be illegal aliens.
     
The controversies have underscored political and cultural polarization within Arizona itself.
      Much of the more reactionary rhetoric, especially on the immigration issue, comes from Maricopa County, which contains the state capital, Phoenix.
      Tucson, a smaller city in the southern part of the state, which was part of Mexico until 1853, is more at ease with its Hispanic heritage.
     
The controversy over SB 1070 was at fever pitch last spring when I was visiting friends and relatives in Tucson.
      While I was there, I attended the graduation ceremonies of the University of Arizona College of Law.
      The main speaker, a former state governor of Hispanic heritage, joked about making sure that he had his identity papers in his pocket.
      The appearance of another speaker, a state legislator who voted in favour of the law, prompted an extensive walkout from the auditorium.
     
These tensions have been further heightened by another new state law, which bans the promotion of ethnic solidarity in schools in the state.
      The target is a Hispanic ethnic studies programme of the Tucson Unified School District.
      There has even been a somewhat jocular initiative for the formation of a 51st state - “Baja Arizona” - in the area that was bought from Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853.
     
The Phoenix-Tucson divide is personified by the top law enforcement officers of the regions.
      Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has gained international notoriety with his tough line on illegal immigration and penal policy.
      Clarence Dupnik, the Sheriff of Pima County, where Tucson is located, is on record as denouncing SB 1070 as racist and declaring that his department would not enforce it.
      After the shooting on January 8th, Dupnik raised hackles on the right with a statement lamenting that Arizona had become a “Mecca for prejudice and bigotry”.
     
Soon after the shooting, a faux news item on a satirical website was shared by some of my Facebook friends from Phoenix.
      The piece did not make light of the tragedy itself, but friends in Tucson from very similar walks of life as the ones in Phoenix made it clear that they did not appreciate it.
      I was somewhat baffled by this, but then again it would not be the first time that I have misjudged the propriety of attempts at humour.
      I expect that I will learn more when I visit Tucson again next month - a holiday trip that I had been planning well before “Tucson” became the name of a massacre, and not just that of a city in the Sonoran Desert.
     
     
The writer is an editor-translator for the International Edition and a former Tucson resident.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  EDITORIAL: USA reflects on hate-mongering in politics (11.1.2011)
  COMMENTARY: America’s astounding firearm fanaticism (11.1.2011)

Helsingin Sanomat