The text reflects on Donald Trump’s recollection of the myth that terrorists were killed before the bullets used were dipped in pig blood. Its significance is reflected in the idea that a strong symbol may influence a crowd and bring a negative connotation to an entire group of people. In this case, Trump referred to Muslim terrorists without explicitly saying it, yet the religious implications of the killings made that clear. The text helps reflect on how history can be deterred to fit the relevant agendas of certain people.
It is taking a historical event, minimizing it into a legend, and framing it as a fact that has a much more powerful message that has the potential to not only inspire people but cause harm. In this case, Trump’s speech had little to do with politics and more to do with supporting the inhumane techniques still used on potentially innocent people with no actual charges (Johnson & DelReal, 2016). On the other hand, history became an anecdote in which the facts do not matter as long as it fits the agenda of the politician.
The article also illustrates the broader topic of political rhetoric that can shift public opinion and create circumstances where people are emotional rather than logical. Mostly, the article raises the following question: Since the conflicts, wars, and injustices of the past are now looked down upon, why are certain events provoking people to think the same strategies can be applied in modern politics?
References
Johnson, J., & DelReal, J. A. (2016). Trump tells story about killing terrorists with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood, though there’s no proof of it. The Washington Post.