After attending Donald Trump’s rally in Chicago on Friday I was left with mixed emotions. In the spirit of full disclosure, I didn't get into the UIC Pavilion. Neither did many Chicagoans who tried to attend the event in order to protest Trump’s presence at the campus. The motivation behind me attending the event was to witness, in person, whether the hatred and violence the media portrays so frequently, really happens at Trump’s events.
I was not disappointed. I witnessed violence, I witnessed blood, I witnessed screaming, crying and hard debating in the streets of the city. So while Trump cancelled the meeting and did not attend the rally, the people of Chicago had their own passionate debate going on the streets. The distress was reciprocal. Both parties (Anti-Trump and Trump supporters) seemed intense in their convictions. I noted however that many of the victims of violence outside the pavilion were the Trump supporters. There I was trapped in the middle of a protest, watching a Trump supporter get assaulted by an Anti-Trump protester. His body is on the pavement bleeding and the crowd stood around and cheered.
I had to reflect on the reversal of images. I had to contrast the images portrayed in the media, the ones that showed protesters being punched and shoved out of the rallies, the insults and the threats that usually accompanied the protesting few taken away by security, and the image of the Trump supporter punched and prone, surrounded by the jeering mass of people.
It seemed as if the very violence we see in the media was now projected in reverse. Why is this? Does the media coverage overstate the threat that Trump is supposed to be? Have they sensationalized a man who uses political rallies to brag about, and have others stand in awe of his financial achievements? Yes he has followers, who want to believe that he can affirm them and the country. He tells them that he can. Make America great and all that! Yes he has followers, who want to believe that America’s problems emerge from ‘those people’, and that there is a threat behind every Muslim, Black, Latino, or woman who dares to confront the system and him.
Do Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders come their own political agenda? Yes they do! Do they come with a rhetoric of ‘othering’ as the political agenda itself? Well maybe Sanders. He thinks Wall Street hides ‘those people’ who are stealing America blind. Yet he does not seem to have the effect of making people want to assault stockbrokers. Maybe they don’t go the Democratic rallies.
Trump however is raising these people to a pitch. While the violent rhetoric may not come from both parties, Trump seems capable of whipping up passions in both parties. Does Trump’s messages transcend political boundaries, bringing out violence on both sides?
Many of the Trump supporters have a sign that states “The silent majority stands with Trump.” Being silent is not the same as being silenced. Are they silent or silenced? If silenced, then Donald Trump gives them a voice and they love him for it. But that voice is undeniably racist, the thugs to which he refers are predominantly young Black men and women, the ‘problem with America’, when he points at them, are black bodies, the ‘good old days’ refer to Jim Crow and ‘roughing them up badly’ refers to well you know, lynching’s.
Do the protesters, mostly non-white if we are to believe the media images, also feel silenced by Trump’s rhetoric?
Steele is a senior education studies major from Chicago, Illinois.