From “Indian Savages” to “Communist,” Labels Have Consequences 

Opinion

Last week, my home state of Michigan took the national stage with a Democratic U.S. Senate primary that pitted Rep. Haley Stevens, the establishment-backed candidate, against Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and progressive Democrat.

El-Sayed’s campaign was heavily outspent. Some $70 million in outside money was spent to defeat him. Still, El-Sayed won by less than one percentage point.

El-Sayed served as director of the Wayne County Department of Health, Human and Veterans Services from March 2023 to 2025. During the campaign, he was labeled a socialist. He rejected that characterization and describes himself as a capitalist.

Since El-Sayed won the nomination, President Donald Trump has attacked him as if he were “public enemy number one.” During an economic speech one day after the primary, Trump called El-Sayed “a man of hate” and mocked his message of love, saying he didn’t believe it. 

Trump also accused El-Sayed of hating Israel and Jewish people “with a burning passion in his heart.”

For the record, El-Sayed has rejected accusations of antisemitism and said he is committed to the safety of Jewish people and opposed to antisemitism in all forms.

There is a certain irony — a lack of self-awareness — in the accusation that El-Sayed is a “man of hate” coming from Trump, who has repeatedly used harsh language against his own opponents. He has called Mexican immigrants “rapists,” described some undocumented immigrants as “animals,” referred to political opponents as “vermin,” called the press “the enemy of the people,” and said immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.”

In the same Las Vegas speech, Trump labeled El-Sayed a communist. El-Sayed, however, describes himself as a capitalist who supports regulated markets and progressive policies such as Medicare for All. He has explicitly rejected communist and socialist labels.

Yet when Trump labels one of his political opponents a “communist,” the label is treated as though it settles the argument. It does not.

That is the power of labels.

They are shortcuts. They allow us to put people into boxes without having to listen to them, understand them or wrestle with the complexity of their ideas.

The tactic is hardly new. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was frequently labeled a communist by political opponents and subjected to FBI investigation over alleged communist ties. King repeatedly rejected communism and made clear that his movement was rooted in democracy, justice, and the moral principles of nonviolence. 

Words matter, but context matters more. If we are going to judge people by the labels attached to them, we should also examine what they say and do. That is a better measure of character than any campaign slogan or political nickname.

America has a long history of using labels to define people before considering who they actually are.  Native people know that history well. 

Consider the Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of this nation. In attacking King George III, Thomas Jefferson accused him of turning Native people against the colonies and referred to them as “merciless Indian Savages.”

Think about that label.

Native people were not described as citizens of sovereign nations with their own governments, cultures, languages and histories. They were reduced to three words that portrayed them as dangerous and less than human.

Labels have consequences.

For Native people, those labels became part of a broader ideology used to justify generations of dispossession, forced removal, broken treaties and attempts to destroy Native cultures. Once a people are defined as inferior, savage or dangerous, it becomes easier for a society to convince itself that what happens to them is somehow justified.

That is why I have always been skeptical of political labels.

“Communist.” “Socialist.” “Radical.” “Fascist.” “MAGA.” “Liberal.” “Conservative.”

Sometimes these words accurately describe political philosophies or movements. But too often, they are used as weapons rather than descriptions.

The question should not be: What label has someone been given?

The question should be: What does this person actually believe?

What policies do they support? What have they accomplished? Who benefits from their proposals? Who might be harmed? What do they say when the cameras are off and the political slogans are stripped away?

That requires more work than repeating a label. Democracy requires that work.

Native people understand the power of words — and labels — better than most Americans. We have lived with the consequences of words written into treaties, laws, court decisions and government policies. We have also lived with words used to diminish our humanity.

So when political leaders casually attach a label to an opponent, we should be careful.

Do not let someone else do your thinking for you.

If Trump calls El-Sayed a communist, voters should examine El-Sayed’s record and positions and decide for themselves whether the label fits. 

The same standard should apply to everyone.

America does not need more labels. It needs more citizens willing to look beyond them.

History teaches us what can happen when labels replace thought:  People stop being judged by what they believe and do — and instead become whatever their opponents call them.  For Native people, the consequences of that kind of thinking aren’t theoretical.  They are written throughout American history. 

That is a lesson America should never forget.

Thayék gde nwéndëmen – We are all related.