Why There’s No More Thanksgiving in Kentucky for Me

Ever since I can remember, my mother has hosted her extended family on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

Our childhood home several miles outside of Bardstown, KY, is the spot for this yearly pilgrimage. Aunts, uncles, cousins, my now 96-year-old grandfather, and even some family friends would converge on our home–sometimes several days in advance. They’d come for food, football, fellowship, and old-fashioned banter. In recent years, as my siblings, cousins and I have married and some have become parents, the number of those attending has swelled to well over 50 guests.

Only three times has my mother failed to host our traditional post-Thanksgiving congress.

The first time was when my uncle got married in upstate New York. The second was in 2001 when my mother was working full time and chipping in as my brother and sister-in-law juggled being first-time parents with working full-time and finishing college. The last time was when my cousin set her 2013 wedding for the Saturday after Thanksgiving. The tradition had been so engrained in our family’s ethos that my cousin called my mom asking for permission to schedule her wedding on that day.

Nearly seven years ago, as I was moving to Washington, DC, my mother made me promise to come home for the annual get together.

“Even if it’s the only time you come home each year, make it Thanksgiving,” she insisted.

But since the rise of Trumpism in the summer of 2015 and the embrace of much of the Republican Party of Islamophobia, I knew my attendance at the annual event might be in jeopardy.

As an Iranian-American and Muslim-American who had supposedly been openly embraced by my mom’s relatives (who are white and mostly Christian), I thought the sorts of vitriol and bigotry being spewed from the right would not intrude on our post-Thanksgiving gathering. My family and I should have been on auto-pilot from the moment the GOP went all-in on attacking immigrants, given the fact that my father is Iranian-born.

But they weren’t. Instead of blasting the right, they played the false equivalency game, suggesting that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s low favorability numbers and her supposedly inadequate response to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi were the same or worse than the invective and innuendo used by multiple GOP contenders to target immigrants and minorities.

I went to Kentucky in 2015 knowing that there were family members who either fully embraced this right-wing rhetoric or who were sitting on the fence. It was not a pleasant experience. To be sure, there were and still are a few who’ve pushed back against the creeping Trumpism running riot in our family. But they remain outliers, multiple standard deviations away from the mean.

By the time 2016 rolled around, it was clear that whatever hopes I had for my relatives to rise above such invective were misplaced. The relatives that were supposed to put family first and stand for obsequious hospitality driven by a strong belief in the Golden Rule, in fact, were enabling the type of politics that ran counter to these principles. Instead of circling the wagons and protecting all of us, they, through their silence or direct support for Trumpism, supplied the kindling that fueled those attacking us from the outside.

The Trump supporters in my family claimed that their favored candidate was merely speaking his mind—and thus was worthy of their support. But the sad fact is that they agreed with what he said. They nodded along when he targeted Muslims. They acquiesced when he mocked the disabled journalist. They condoned his support for harsh and brutal constitutionally-questionable police tactics. They parroted his racist dog whistles.

It didn’t matter, apparently, that members of their own family would be targeted or feel threatened. It wouldn’t matter that their support for him was a betrayal of everything for which our family has stood. It wouldn’t matter that they’d put politics before family.

The reality is, they are directly complicit in the fear and anxiety that my parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, and Iranian relatives feel every single day.

To date, the relatives who supported Trump have yet to openly show remorse. Instead, they’re relying on a false hope that our familial bonds will absolve them from having to apologize for their betrayal. While I still love them, my relationship with them has been fundamentally and likely irrevocably changed.  The people who I thought would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me to face hatred, racism, and bigotry, instead fed me and my Iranian relatives to the wolves.

This 500-pound gorilla will remain in the room at every family event until they’re willing to show some form of contrition—or at a minimum, acknowledge the damage that they have done.

Never in my wildest dreams, could I have imagined so many members of the family to which I owe much of my upbringing would be so willing to embrace a candidate who promised to target my sister, brother, father, nieces, nephews and indeed all my Iranian relatives.

It should come as no surprise, then, that for the second year in a row (and only the third time ever), with the approval of my mother, I missed the Saturday after Thanksgiving gathering. I still love my family, but I do get to set the boundaries for my relationship with them. Last November, they crossed a line that should have never been crossed.

Instead, I exercised my right to choose by surrounding myself with people who I not only love, but also trust. I know they wouldn’t sell me out or betray me for some false promise to make America great again.

Advertisements

The Limits of the “Both Sides Are Bad” Argument

This piece originally appeared in the KY Standard.

For the last 18 years, I’ve studied conflict. The types of conflagrations most Americans know little about, but nonetheless are familiar with—the Balkans, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, Syria, etc.

Within the context of conflict, I’ve tried to parse out the definition of objectivity.

It is here where many make the intellectually lazy and morally absolving mistake of the “both sides” argument. The logic goes thusly: both sides are bad, therefore either outcome is equally bad, affecting us the same, thus picking sides is futile.

But, this logic is a deficient attempt at absolving those involved of responsibility. If they refuse to take a side (because both sides are bad), the opinion holder believes they are no longer culpable for the outcome. They can and likely will, however, take the credit for predicting the inevitable failures.

In politics, saying all candidates are flawed is much like saying the sky is blue. We know both to be true…most of the time.

We spent much of 2016 debating the merits of two candidates for the highest office. The public and the media sullied themselves by embracing false equivalency and “both sides are bad” arguments. On one side, one candidate ran on a platform that attacked nearly every racial and religious minority, along with bragging about sexually assaulting women and denigrating the LGBTQ community. The other side had utilized a private email account to conduct government business—a common practice among senior level officials (including the current White House). One side had suspicious ties with foreign entities. Meanwhile, the other side was accused of being an establishment politician.

Objectivity would mean reporting these issues in a fair manner. Equating them, forcing them into the “all sides are bad” argument, meaning each negative is thusly equivalent, is not being objective. It’s like suggesting that the “n-word” is equivalent to the term “cracker.” While some may consider both offensive, for obvious reasons, we all know one is clearly worse than the other.

The 2016 Presidential Election Campaign reminded me of a statement Christiane Amanpour made at an event I attended in late 2011. Amanpour was relaying her experience reporting on the Balkans conflict in the early 90s. As a reporter, she had to be objective and prided herself on maintaining her reputation for being just that. But, she said, what happens in situations where giving both sides equal time, equal shares, equal coverage, one side still comes out looking bad? She paused. Then concluded, if in your efforts to be truly objective, one side is clearly to blame or has been more egregious than the other, then your report isn’t biased. It is the objective truth.

In an article sixteen years prior, she drew the same conclusion, “There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing.”

The Serbians complained her reporting was unfair. But, I’m not sure if the Bosnians or Croats can top the shelling of busy marketplaces or brutality murdering thousands of unarmed civilians at Srebrenica. Surely, there were violations on both side, but when push comes to shove not all violations are created equal.

Calling both sides bad during the 2016 Presidential Race drew false equivalencies between the candidates. One side was worse than the other and our unwillingness to parse the differences and engage and exercise our intellect brought us to where we are today.

The country is worse off because good Americans refused to take a stand. Instead they chose the moral convenience of suggesting both side were bad, clearing the way for racism, bigotry, homophobia, Islamophobia and sexism to be allowed back into the mainstream.

All for what? A few extra dollars back in tax returns? To keep immigrants out? To shake up the system? To drain the swamp? To keep a liberal from running the White House for another 4 years? To fill the courts with partial and unqualified conservative jurists? Or simply because conservatives couldn’t fathom casting a ballot for someone from the other party?

None of these things were worth risking our beacon on the hill, unless of course your vision for this country is exactly the one described two paragraphs above.

Our country deserves better.