Speaking as a white American who knows plenty of muslims and has read the Koran, I see two things:
1. A large group of ordinary citizens who are good people and decent citizens who harbor no hatred towards the US. These are obviously the majority. But they're a SILENT majority.
2. A small group of extremely vocal muslims who express a desire to bring down the US, Europe, India, or other countries, and march proclaiming allegiance to extremist Muslim organizations, like Hezbollah. The vocal minority gets almost all of the press, though it's changing glacially on the major news networks.

The problem, the BIG PROBLEM, is that most of the time you do not hear the majority speak out against the extremists and that vocal minority. This morning CNN ran a story about the group arrested in Toronto, and only a few of the desi they interviewed were willing to speak out against ANY form of extremism. Most didn't want to be interviewed on camera. Another great example is the show "30 Days" where a right-wing Christian went to live with a Muslim family in Dearborn for a month. He challenged them constantly on whey they never spoke out against extremists and they never had a good answer.

People in the US will continue to mistrust Muslims as long as the silent majority let the vocal minority speak for them.

I know a good many Muslims, and yes I think they are sympathetic towards Al Qaeda, and I believe they are loyal to the U.S. as long as they do not, in any stretch of the imagination, feel that their religion is being threatened. Do I think they will go pick up arms against the U.S./India, etc. No. But do they share a moment of, "I told you so," or, "See what you got?" Yes. Even the editor of Newsweek, a Muslim Fareed Zakaria wrote in the days after 9/11 the feeling of strength among many Muslims the world over, including the U.S. that the "West" got "a bloody nose" from Muslims [for their "oppressive," "imperialistic" foreign policy].

They send 10% of their earnings to their Mosques, and Mosques in the U.S. and U.K. and other Western nations have been recruiting stations for Jihadis, and have funded terror groups overseas. Indirectly many Muslims are involved.

They send 10% of their earnings to their Mosques, and Mosques in the U.S. and U.K.

You are confusing them with mormons.

As a result, 40% of Americans are willing to countenance some fairly un-American measures for combatting terrorism, including consideration of a “special ID”

That's hot.

is this evidence that the terrorists are winning?

Bold statement Ennis! I know that Anna and Abhi have also commented on this before -- the fact that five years on, no one in the major media or government seems to want to admit that 9/11 has severely undermined the fabric of N America's civil society. It's almost as if admitting to this means admitting a "loss". But the longer such denial remains in effect, the more serious the problems become. Just look at these polls -- five years on, it's time for some honesty.

I think it is as expected.. Anyone (non Muslim) who picks up an online version of Quran/Hadiths/related stuff and reads its treatment of kafirs/non-muslims and relates it to the treatment non-Muslims receive in the so called 'Islamic world' would definitely have an anti-islamic view.. I believe this 40% is going to get higher..

The problem, the BIG PROBLEM, is that most of the time you do not hear the majority speak out against the extremists and that vocal minority.

That's a fallacy. Community organizations have spoken out consistently, long since 9/11, denouncing terrorism. I don't know whether average Muslims have denounced terrorism in your earshot, but I wouldn't jump from that to assuming that this means tacit support. Consider a counter example - I haven't heard most of the Americans I know condemn the recent rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and her family in Mahmoudiya, Iraq by 5 Marines, does that mean that they support this action? For the rhetorical-question impaired out there, of course not. Most Americans think this is a horrible criminal act. Furthermore, they would resent the assumption that they need to go around publically condemning the criminal actions of a minority in order to not be lumped with them.

Are Americans distrustful of *all* Muslims, including African American muslims, or only Muslims who look like they're not American? We need to pay attention to how religion here is tied up with questions of race/ethnicity also. According to a survey commissioned last year by the American Muslim Council, African-Americans make up about 24% of the Muslim population of the U.S. (other estimates are as high as 42%) [http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa012601c.htm].

Does the African-American part of an African American Muslim override Muslim-ness? If yes, then we need to see this problem for what it is. American exceptionalism (which has a long history) that is now bring defined in religious terms.

Are Americans distrustful of *all* Muslims, including African American muslims, or only Muslims who look like they're not American? We need to pay attention to how religion here is tied up with questions of race/ethnicity also.

That's a good question Ashwin. I'll bet most Americans don't realize that 25% of Muslims in America are black (although aren't some of these African immigrants?). And yes, in the USA, color is noticed before anything else, and often over-rides other characteristics.

@Maurice

1. A large group of ordinary citizens who are good people and decent citizens who harbor no hatred towards the US. These are obviously the majority. But they're a SILENT majority.
2. A small group of extremely vocal muslims who express a desire to bring down the US, Europe, India, or other countries, and march proclaiming allegiance to extremist Muslim organizations, like Hezbollah. The vocal minority gets almost all of the press, though it's changing glacially on the major news networks.

There are more than 2 types of Muslims with varying shades of grey. I would say that the majority harbors no hatred towards American individuals, dislikes American foreign policy, loathes interference with any attempts at democracy (Hez & Hamas), destests American freedom and democracy that comes at the barrel of a gun and can't understand why a group of people who purport to love the ballot don't condemn their leadership for interference with Middle Eastern attempts at democracy. People in the Middle East will continue to distrust christians and/or Americans as long as the silent majority (don't believe that democracy can be imposed violently from without)let the vocal majority (Administration, Bush Doctrine, "with us or against us", Pat Robertson)speak for them.

@badmash

no one in the major media or government seems to want to admit that 9/11 has severely undermined the fabric of N America's civil society. It's almost as if admitting to this means admitting a "loss".

I would say that we are 7 points down with a 2-minute warning, no timeouts and 80 yards to go. If we want to make it to overtime we must (1) chuck the playbook that says they want to kill us b/c they hate democracy and short skirts and (2) look at the game plan that shows they want to kill the stability and predictability in our way of life b/c they perceive that we interfere with theirs.

"let the vocal majority" minority

Community organizations have spoken out consistently, long since 9/11, denouncing terrorism. I don't know whether average Muslims have denounced terrorism in your earshot, but I wouldn't jump from that to assuming that this means tacit support.

Additionally, the muslim organizing community here in the US has been blasting consistantly positve press releases on how "not all muslims are terrorists", and "we are American too" (Check out the work of CAIR or MAS) but for some reason, big media outlets like CNN don't find THOSE stories as newsworthy as "muslims are terrorist." I wouldn't say the problem was the muslim community being silent, as much as the media conglomerate being biased and unbreakable.

As for the individuals that are too scared to speak- are you kidding me? Have you seen these numbers and what a scary place the US has become for Muslims these days? Traditional means of influencing political power, such as calling your local reprensentative, is something that my mom won't do because she is afraid that "they" will track her down for "pro-muslim comments." My parents, once important Muslim leaders in their Bangladeshi community, have completely toned down their activites, for fear.

I find the results of the gallup poll absolutely deplorable and makes me ashamed to call myself an American. As a Muslim American, 39% of my peers think I need to carry a special id, and as if flying while brown isn't hard enough, 41% think the "Americans" will be safer if I get additionally checked at the airports. Protecting the civil rights of Desis, South Asian Americans, Muslims- 'my people'- is what I've commited myself to fighting because I simply don't think this is fair. But seeing these poll results are ridiculous, and simply shows how much of an uphill battle we are still fighting.

The problem with the [ ]s is that even the good ones are not doing enough to reign in the extremist ones. Why don't they just speak out against the bad minority? Well, unfortunately, they'll all have to pay for this, sooner or later. Yes, making them all carry ID or an identifying mark is a bit of a hassle, but democratically speaking, our people are behind it. And since the [ ]s are obviously not committed to [ ] values, in the interest of [ ] security we need some easy way of identifying and organizing them. Not for any sinister purpose, you understand, but so that...

Ennis, I'm not stating that silence is tacit support. Almost every Muslim I know doesn't support terrorism, and there are certainly organizations that do speak out against terrorims, but the amount of speaking out, and the volume is so small as to not register with most Americans. As an example, despite the amount of known destruction that bin Laden has caused (the USS Cole bombing, the bombing of the two US embassies in Africa, 9/11), it wasn't until a YEAR after the Madrid bombings that the Spanish Muslim leaders issued a fatwa against bin Laden (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/11/fatwa-050311.html). Why'd it take so long? I know that right after 9/11 the Council on American-Islamic Relations denounced the attacks and I do not mean to disparage their words or efforts, but truly, the impression in the US is that Muslims, while not agreeing with terrorists and their methods, sit in despondent silence rather than speak up.

And I think that most Americans distrust both traditional Islam and the Nation of Islam brand.

BTW, I really appreciate the way this discussion has remained constructive and civil as people disagree with each other. I, and my blood pressure, really appreciate that.

Look, please don't misunderstand, I'm speaking in terms of what the average American perceives. Certainly as your average American, who consumes average media (as well as alternative sources of media) and talks with average Americans I can tell you what people perceive. I myself know that there are many shades of gray in the Muslim world, and that many Muslims have taken pains to speak out against the acts of bin Laden and others. I know Muslims, I've read the Koran, and I have a different opinion of what's going on in the Muslim world than what most Americans know. What I perceive is a great struggle for power in Islam that is similar to the Protestant Reformation. You have differing sects and groups, like the Wahabis, and the Deobandis, and all of the other groups that are fighting for their idea of "correct Islam".

I also think that this battle for the soul of Islam will get bloodier and uglier before it gets better.

I just want to differentiate that my first post is not an expression of my own personal feelings, but of those of the "Average American" (tm).

And I think that most Americans distrust both traditional Islam and the Nation of Islam brand.

Not sure where you're going with that, but most African-American muslims actually *do not* belong to the nation of Islam.

hm.

a few issues

1) i think you are making too much of this poll. sometimes beliefs can be widely held & shallow. that is, most people aver a rather shocking belief, but they hardly think about, so be cautious of its depth. for example, recent polls have shown that atheists are the source of more hostility than homosexuals. but this is an illustration of the shallow & deep principle, in my right-wing high school i was open as an atheist (one of 5 non-whites in a schoo of 900). on the other hand, the gay kids regularly were insulted, beaten up, etc. my point is that the public my aver a greater hostility toward the image of atheism, but homophobia is far more deep-seated. in fact, the polls show more atheismphobia than islamophobia, but i don't believe that. the reason there is more atheismphobia is that people haven't been indoctrinated or "educated" to "say the right thing." there isn't a council at american atheism relations, or atheist human rights campaign, making people "sensitive."

2) i'll be straight up, 9/11 was a big deal, but it didn't change everything. my parents are open muslims, but they don't dress differently and admitted to their bangladeshi relatives that sikhs were in much more danger than muslims.

3) badmash's comment about the tearing of civil society is something i disagree with. the number of americans who have nutcase views has always been rather high. most atheists know that most americans don't want atheists teaching in public schools. but this never becomes an issue. why? it is a shallow belief.

4) after 9/11 john stossel interviewed many people about profiling muslims. he asked a few black youth on the street, and they were like, "yeah, they're terrorists, take 'em off the plane." then he was like, "well, what i said 'black youth commit a lot of crimes, look at them more closely...'" all of a sudden the attitude changed, and they rethought their attitude toward racial profiling. my point is that some of these views might be less deep-seated than you think.

5) let me use another analogy. online dating services show that non-white males in particular are highly disadvantaged. white women respond a lot less to our adverts (and the majority of females are white). in fact, a recent survey showed that the median white woman asserted that an asian man would have to make hundreds of thousands of dollars for her to date him. now, how does it work in the real world? the only men dating white women are not $200 K year lawyers. this is a situation where people say one thing, based on expectations, beliefs and ideals, and do another when confronted with reality of their attractions not being totally informed by their beliefs. i have lived overwhelmingly white areas my whole life, have never made triple digits, am a rich brown color, etc., but i haven't had many issues. i even lived in a 50% mormon area that was 80% republican. again, i didn't perceive a problem getting dates. of course, i'm sure many women wouldn't take me because of my race, but 50% of a pool of potentialities is still non-trivial.

6) my overall point is that we need to take a more nuanced perspective of human psychologies and keep in mind manifold disparate tensions and directionalities. polls assay the reflective mind. sometimes they are in depth, and explore deeply held beliefs. sometimes they are rather casual and trivial.

on muslims

a) i hold that the attitude of the average american muslim is similar to a southern baptist on most issues

b) this is a problem, if the median christian was a southern baptist than a methodist (methodists are median on most issues for xtian denominations) this would be a scary nation

c) religious muslims are affected by 'reformist' currents issuing from saudi foundations

d) american muslims are naturally affected by the manifest barbarism of the muslim world when looked through the lens of human rights

e) the fact that the vocal members of the community are emerging from immigrant communities means of course they will be detached and less 'embedded' in national culture. additionally, black muslims (not nation of islam types, but the mainstream black muslims) are in my experience a particular alienated subset of blacks who are skeptical of the promises that this nation makes to its citizens (for obvious reasons)

I'm curious how the people polled would want to go from proposing ID cards (theory) to actually making people wear them (practice). Have a civil police force stand outside of a mosque after friday afternoon prayers and "pin the masses" as they come out? Or just haphazzardly make any brown person, who could be Hindi, Muslim, etc., wear them?

In return, I'd like to see the ghoras and others wear badges identifying themselves too...say by political party. I always like to know beforehand if someone's conservative (most likely Republican) or liberal (most likely Democrat). Think they'd go for that?

i think you are making too much of this poll. sometimes beliefs can be widely held & shallow. that is, most people aver a rather shocking belief, but they hardly think about, so be cautious of its depth.

But hardcore extremism, which could eventually manifest into trouble and violence, is usually built on a foundation of a more generic or fully thought out sympathy.

i have lived overwhelmingly white areas my whole life, have never made triple digits, am a rich brown color, etc., but i haven't had many issues.

Coping booty means nothing. Our own sexual proclivities run counter to our ideals very often. And when I was a clubbin man, my black friends got all the white booty they could have ever wanted. It didn't reduce the incidents of driving while black, etc.

"Why don't they just speak out against the bad minority?"

I would like an answer to that one too. Funny no one answered it directly (I mean like "Why I don't speak out" rather than "Why I think they don't...")

We did. We said that "they" do through their organizations.

But hardcore extremism, which could eventually manifest into trouble and violence, is usually built on a foundation of a more generic or fully thought out sympathy.

sure, it is a necessary condition. but it isn't sufficient. for widepspread violence against unliked minorities to occur the elites must get on board. that hasn't happened over the past 150 years (from the irish riots, to the jewish anarchists and communists, etc.).

Our own sexual proclivities run counter to our ideals very often. And when I was a clubbin man, my black friends got all the white booty they could have ever wanted. It didn't reduce the incidents of driving while black, etc.

i wasn't using the dating example to directly imply a causal connection between that and hostility. i was using it as an analogy. my big point is this: most humans are unreflective and knee-jerk in their attitudes. you need to be cautious in terms of how much you read into polls. e.g., the polls in the muslim world often imply a lot of hostility to the united states. but that doesn't mean that the 80% of muslims in country X are going to get on a jihadin'. so the number truly and hard-core prejudiced against muslims is probably a lot lower than the numbers above.

As a Muslim living in America, I have never really been threatened. I get some funny looks from strangers on account of my hijab, and I get asked interesting questions, but for the most part everyone is accepting and tolerant. Since 9/11, if anything, people have become more open to Islam.

@ Ponniyin Selvan
"I think it is as expected.. Anyone (non Muslim) who picks up an online version of Quran/Hadiths/related stuff and reads its treatment of kafirs/non-muslims and relates it to the treatment non-Muslims receive in the so called 'Islamic world' would definitely have an anti-islamic view.. I believe this 40% is going to get higher.."

The parts which non-Muslims tend to read and the media tends to focus on are not really the parts that define Islam. Any religion requires more effort in order to be fully understood. Islam is not really getting that consideration through the media.

Anyway, my point is that, no matter what the polls say, the great majority of Americans (in the Midwest anyway) are very open, accepting, and tolerant. And the great majority of American Muslims take pride in their American-ness.

Exactly what does it mean to be "loyal to the United States"? If you immigrated here, how is that not evidence of your loyalty? Presumably, you value the economic opportunity, civil liberties (such as they are for Muslims), and the right to be secure in your property and possessions as you raise your family. Participating in this system should be sufficient evidence of loyalty. No one asks if American evangelical Christians are more loyal to their country than their faith--and I suspect the answer would be to God, as He guides His most favored nation to Destiny. So patriotism and godliness have become inseparable under Bush, meaning that if you don't profess the one, you certainly can't profess the other. Therefore, all non-Christians (except the Jews, who will get the message at the End Times or be vaporized) are--in the current political climate--de facto traitors.

Presumably, you value the economic opportunity, civil liberties (such as they are for Muslims), and the right to be secure in your property and possessions as you raise your family.

my parents didn't immigration for civil liberties :) they came for the $$$. i don't know, perhaps they are less public spirited than all the other immigrants and immigrant parents (just trying to keep in real here).

No one asks if American evangelical Christians are more loyal to their country than their faith--and I suspect the answer would be to God, as He guides His most favored nation to Destiny.

the key is to always rework you faith so that being a traitor isn't a possibility. many muslims, in my exp., haven't done this, because an american islam hasn't arisen yet. the bavarian catholics showed their metal against fellow german catholics during the austro-prussian war. the reason that some criticize some muslims are assertions like, "i can never fight another muslim." christians have long had no problem killing other christians. and frankly, neither have muslims. the key for muslims seems to be that they are fighting for a non-muslim nation. but, some muslim scholars simply assert that the USA is a muslim nation because in this nation the practice of the religion is totally free. muslims need to accept this balderdash as truth to get along (most religion is sincerely held balderdash, so no worries).

I have railed against Islamic terrorism on this site and at the same time discounted White on minority racism. Whenever someone has brought up an incident that might have a whiff of racism, I have given the majority a benefit of the doubt. This bias comes from my own experience in America. In college and thereafter. Mostly predominantly White settings. I didn't experience any White racism. Unfortunately I have been a victim of minority ( Black ) racism and more than on just one occasion. But there have been several more instances of Blacks being good to me.

I had also questioned the brouhaha over violation of Muslims' civil rights after 9/11. The deportations, the intimidations e.t.c. I do believe that vast majority of Muslims in America are peaceful and law abiding. But I too have been dismayed by the lack of protests from the Muslim communities in the West ( particularly Europe ) against Islamic terrorism. They have after all been very prompt in coming out in huge numbers against the cartoons and for Hezbollah. I also gave a pass to the anti Muslim rantings on certain websites as a non violent reaction to the wickedly violent ways of Islamic terrorism. Though I conceded ( in an earlier comment )that these same people will effortlessly switch gears and badmouth immigration, outsourcing and Hindus. Which brings me to the recent events in Edison, NJ:

Long simmering tension between Edison's growing Asian-Indian population and longtime residents boiled over yesterday at a rally organized by Indians to protest an alleged police brutality incident against a member of their community.

During the rally outside township hall, a group of about 60 Asian-Indian residents were met by a counter-protest of 40 mostly white residents defending the police department.

This is what some of the counter-protesters had to say;

"How many of you are illegals? You must've slid under the border to come here!
You're all cockroaches! Go home!"

"Act like animals, and you will be treated like animals.
"They do not know unity, they are setting up their own country here. Obey the laws here or go back to your country.

and finally this :

Parikh stood among the Asian- Indian protesters yesterday, waiting to speak about the incident, when two men identifying themselves as agents with U.S. Immigra tion and Customs Enforcement took him into township hall for questioning. One told Parikh they had a warrant for his arrest.

These were Indian Hindus and not Pakistani Muslims, yet the same invectives and the same intimidation. Even though I stand by most of what I have said before, the above makes me wonder if I have only been half-right all along. I hope these White protesters are an anomaly and don't represent a silent majority that stayed home.

Even though I stand by most of what I have said before, the above makes me wonder if I have only been half-right all along.

Decontextualized, that's as lucid a statement of faith as I ever care to have.

May we always wonder.

Decontextualized, that's as lucid a statement of faith as I ever care to have.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

These were Indian Hindus and not Pakistani Muslims, yet the same invectives and the same intimidation. Even though I stand by most of what I have said before, the above makes me wonder if I have only been half-right all along

What do you expect? In America, the karma of Muslim folk is the karma of Hindu folk. The only difference may be that the perception of Indian Hindus among American elites is generally more postive.

Mr Kobayashi: I'm aware that Nation of Islam is not actually Islam in any stretch, but only by name. I've actually done a bit of reading about it so I'm familiar with the subject but I think that most Americans don't understand the distinction between an actual Muslim and a practioner of NOI or the 5 Percenters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Gods_and_Earths)

What do you expect? In America, the karma of Muslim folk is the karma of Hindu folk. The only difference may be that the perception of Indian Hindus among American elites is generally more postive.

familiarity. whites raised among browns always say, "oh, so you're muslim," when they hear my name (e.g., a smokin' blonde i met once from marin whose best friend was crispy).

Compare the Gallup poll results to this poll on Catholic priests:

THE CHURCH AND PROBLEM PRIESTS

By more then four to one, Americans think the Church has handled the problem of priests sexually molesting children poorly. Catholics concur; 69% of those who identify themselves as Catholics today think their Church has handled things poorly; just 23% think it has done a good job.
Link

I'm sure the number of problem priests is a fairly small number, but unfortunately the public perception of the priests and the manner in which the Church has handled the issue has been less than favorable. However one big difference is that Catholics themselves admit that there is a problem. Something that the Muslim community has refused to do. By blaming various external reasons for the extremism , rather than the fundamentalist views being taught in their mosques, the Muslim community and their public relations groups and representatives are only furthering the feeling of distrust of Muslims by the general populace.

Even with a last name like "Atheist" and a middle name like "the" ? Boy, what do they think when they meet GC ;)

Maharani

The parts which non-Muslims tend to read and the media tends to focus on are not really the parts that define Islam. Any religion requires more effort in order to be fully understood. Islam is not really getting that consideration through the media.

:-)
I think people see through this argument.. (mostly coming from folks who live as minorities in lands where Islam is not dominant..). They just have to look at the so called "islamic countries" for the parts that "really" define Islam.. Leave Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, even in the much touted "moderate" Malaysia, it is illegal for a Muslim to convert to another religion.. So curious people learn facts about Islam, just look around the state of the "islamic world" that reinforces the stuff they have read and instantly become anti-Islamic..

One way to overcome this is as Razib suggested, the "balderdash" of preaching America is more islamic than others as it follows the "real" teachings.. I don't know if many people will buy it though.. I expect an increase in the percentage of people with anti-Islamic views..

I'll be honest - I'm not fond of most Muslims. I withhold judgement until I get to know them, and a couple I got along well with. But I'm troubled by certain aspects. Of course, I am only speaking for my humble country. However, when the first generation occupy the lowest rungs of the social ladder, shouldn't the next generation try to break out of that mold? Instead, they drop out of highschool or pursue vocational careers, finally ending up on welfare and never contributing anything substantial to society, although ironically their desire for expensive jewellery and flashy sports cars remains, along with an adherence to ideas that are archaic in the context of the currect values and norms of society. The few who do pursue a university or ordinary college education generally hold opinions that are balanced and articular. However I'm rather troubled especially by the rampant anti-Semitism amongst a lot of Muslims in this country, along with a sense of martyrdom. Surinamis, Antilians and Indonesians have been discriminated in equal measure, and yet these ethnic groups are considered well-integrated. I have no idea what Muslims in the USA are like, but I get the feeling that they are a lot better educated and more integrated into American society. When I pass groups of Moroccan, Arab or Turk-looking men on the street I tend to go out of my way to avoid them, much the same as I do with skinheads. I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is.

I'm sure the number of problem priests is a fairly small number

Actually, it isn't. And this is a great example of the way we give some people the benefit of the doubt but not others.

Before you read on, make a guess as to how many American priests have been accused of molestation. Guess - 100? 200? You're wrong by an entire order of magnitude.

According to Catholic sources, it's at least 4%, almost 5,000 priests, which is significant:

About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.
The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984. [link]

Here's an example from Ireland:

On 22 October 2005 a government-commissioned report compiled by a former Irish Supreme Court judge delivered a damning indictment of the handling of clerical sex abuse in the Irish diocese of Ferns. The report revealed over 100 cases of child sex abuse in the small diocese, involving a number of clergymen, including Monsignor Micheál Ledwidth, the former head of the National Catholic seminary, Maynooth College. [link]

And that doesn't even get into the cover up:

In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later elected Pope Benedict XVI on the death of his predecessor, sent a letter [4] to all Catholic Bishops declaring that the Church's investigations into claims of child sex abuse claims were subject to the pontifical secret and were not to be reported to law enforcement, on pain of excommunication. The secrecy related only to the internal investigation, and the letter did not attempt to discourage victims from reporting abuse to the police. [link]

So 5,000 priests have been accused of molestation, and these acts were systematically hidden by the hierarchy. Do we feel that all priests support molestation? Do we walk around asking priests to condemn sexual abuse and ask them why they aren't doing so more loudly? Or do we assue that they think it is bad? You yourself assumed that these were the acts of a tiny minority. Why not do so for Muslims.

What do you expect? In America, the karma of Muslim folk is the karma of Hindu folk.

here;s a man who's near the tipping point.

Increasingly, when I encounter people who are scared of me, after a terrorist act or threat, I get more and more frustrated, not with those who are scared of me, but with Muslim communities in countries such as Canada and England..."

I have one attitude to individuals, another another attitude to crowds.

Suppose that a Gallup pollster were to ask me "What do you think of Muslims?". I would think of an undifferentiated crowd of Muslims, not an individual Muslim. Then I would say, "No, I don't like Muslims".

On the other hand, suppose that a Gallup pollster were to ask me "What do you think of Shah Rukh Khan?". I would think of an individual Muslim, not an undifferentiated crowd of Muslims. Then I would say, "Yes, I like him".

My point is this: the Gallup poll only elicited the attitude to an undifferentiated crowd of people, not the attitude to an individual. The attitude to an undifferentiated crowd of people is always negative. The only kinds of tolerable crowds are a wedding crowd or the crowd at a classical music concert.

As far as the Edison episode (Post 27) is concerned, I am not clear whether there is racism involved. After all, I have a poor impression when I see white crowds at a rodeo show.

Keep in mind though, most people's reactions to Muslims in this country have a different root than those in America - here they are mostly formed by reactions to the trouble Muslims cause on the streets rather than global terrorism.

I have no idea what Muslims in the USA are like, but I get the feeling that they are a lot better educated and more integrated into American society.

yeah. thatz why they aren't as nutz, they have houses to lose, and billz to pay.

Well here it's the opposite. Often actually the first gen don't even speak our language, so they have absolutely no control over their sons(it's the boys that give problems, not the girls, they are mostly fine).

I am not clear whether there is racism involved

meena,

i believe the future of islamic terror will continue to be european muslims. they are a scary interlocking of necessary conditions to unlease this sort of social anomie (poor, alienated, deracinated and reideologized, etc.). american muslims have a potentially scary ideology, but their bourgieos lifestyle means that they don't go down that path as far. poor immigrants without any cohering ideology are scary as individuals (random crime), but they don't present an organized threat.

Oy. What a loaded subject. I appreciate everyone's thoughts here; I frequent SM but don't comment as much as I'd like to. I can't resist this subject.

The problem, the BIG PROBLEM, is that most of the time you do not hear the majority speak out against the extremists and that vocal minority.

As a journalist and an active Muslim-American, I have to disagree with this statement. Muslims speaking out against extremists just does not make the news. As an Ahmadi Muslim, I know that my religious community (numbering 220 million worldwide) has been extremely vocal and active against extremism and terrorism long before 9/11. Yet the number of Americans who know of or have heard of our peaceful/tolerant views and activities against such nonsense is virtually nil. "Muslims Bomb Subways/WTC/Etc." makes for better headlines and sells more papers than "Muslims speak out against extremism." I invite anyone to do a search on this subject, my community, and try to find the media coverage. In relation to the activities and work the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does worldwide, the disparity in coverage is particularly egregious.

That said, there is always room for more moderate Muslims to speak out. I do, however, appreciate Ennis' comment:

That's a fallacy. Community organizations have spoken out consistently, long since 9/11, denouncing terrorism. I don't know whether average Muslims have denounced terrorism in your earshot, but I wouldn't jump from that to assuming that this means tacit support. Consider a counter example - I haven't heard most of the Americans I know condemn the recent rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and her family in Mahmoudiya, Iraq by 5 Marines, does that mean that they support this action? For the rhetorical-question impaired out there, of course not. Most Americans think this is a horrible criminal act. Furthermore, they would resent the assumption that they need to go around publically condemning the criminal actions of a minority in order to not be lumped with them.

Finally, I have a big problem with this:

Maharani
The parts which non-Muslims tend to read and the media tends to focus on are not really the parts that define Islam. Any religion requires more effort in order to be fully understood. Islam is not really getting that consideration through the media.

:-)
I think people see through this argument.. (mostly coming from folks who live as minorities in lands where Islam is not dominant..). They just have to look at the so called "islamic countries" for the parts that "really" define Islam.. Leave Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, even in the much touted "moderate" Malaysia, it is illegal for a Muslim to convert to another religion.. So curious people learn facts about Islam, just look around the state of the "islamic world" that reinforces the stuff they have read and instantly become anti-Islamic..

The truth is, "so-called Islamic countries" have distanced themselves from true Islam so much that the religion itself is often lumped in with fascist, oppressive and extremist regimes who try to gain political power by distorting and abusing a religion. As an American, I believe the values that America stands for are much more aligned with the true Islam than Saudi/Pakistan/etc. Instead of looking at these extremist countries, why don't more people study the true source itself?

As a result, 40% of Americans are willing to countenance some fairly un-American measures for combatting terrorism, including consideration of a “special ID” [A green crescent sewn into their clothes? A religious passbook?] with a majority of Americans in support of religiously selective screening.

What's funny is that, in so-called Muslim countries such as Pakistan, even minorities who call themselves Muslim actually have to have special identification. As an Ahmadi, the Pakistani government considers me "non-Muslim," even though I clearly identify myself as a Muslim. "Non-Muslim" is blatantly brandished on a Pakistani passport of Ahmadi Muslims. The persecution of this community is institutionalized there (and in other Muslim countries). It is PRECISELY this type of law that strengthens extremist and terrorist elements in a country like Pakistan. Persecution Ahmadis in Pakistan is directly related to Pakistan's terrorism/extremism problem, yet, again, it is an issue that is blatantly ignored. It's a joke that Pakistan is a member of the newly-formed UN Commission on Human Rights while it actively promotes such laws. Do Americans really want to send our democracy back into the middle ages by following Pakistan's lead?

As an Ahmadi Muslim

hm. my family is friends with ahmadis. let me be frank: as an atheist, i accept that you are a muslim, but no sunni muslim i've met dones. in fact, even 'moderate' have bizarre conspiracy theories about your religion being a colonial plot or something.

in any case, for those of us who aren't muslims, the 'real islam' is the brutal islam that your community experiences in pakistan. ye shall know them by their fruits....

to be precise, islam is simply a statistical distribution of behaviors. we are interested in the median behavior, and how we might change it. (as an apostate, i hope that the 'consensus' of death for the likes of me if i do not repent within a month is changed in the near future)

razib - I sort of figured. The trouble is that most Muslims here seem to look for external causes for their disadvantaged position, rather than do some soul-searching. It's always the Jewish Domination, the Americans, well, someone else. I don't deny that there is such a thing as racism. But the Muslims aren't completely helpless.

Although, considering this past discussion on Catholic priests, interestingly America is the laughing stock here, among others because of the literal interpretation of the Bible that is so widespread. Everytime some professor mentions that shockingly only 50% of the Americans believe in evolution in some form most folks here are silently giggling in their fists.

Sorry if my comments are confusing or illegible, I'm not as comfortable in English as in Dutch, especially when it comes to writing.

we are interested in the median behavior, and how we might change it.

Why? Even if the distribution is normal shaped, might I simply want to reduce the variance to get rid of the whackos at one end of the curve? And I'm really not convinced this distribution is normal, large numbers be damned. My gut says it's pretty highly skewed in terms of behavior. Do you really think there are as many hyper-mosque goers as there are occassional mosque goers? I figure the curve is skewed towards the less observant side, with a long tail snaking out towards more and more intensely pious behavior. The less observant have little interest in violence, and only some of the intensely observant do.

The trouble is that most Muslims here seem to look for external causes for their disadvantaged position, rather than do some soul-searching.

yes, this is a problem, but in america you need to look to the future. the 'culture of critique' seems a new thing in the west itself, and as we know even here its roots are not deep. but my personal experience is that non-westerners, including non-muslims like the chinese, do not have familiarity or understanding this culture. shame dictates that one place the locus of mischief upon others if at all possible (we see this in our own lives as individuals everyday, it is a human bias). the immigrant generation is probably prone to this still because they still have not internalized all western mores. the 2nd gen has a better shot. the key is critique and decomposition of tradition.

my opposition to multicult is because i feel some westerners want to shield non-whites from the emergence of the culture of critique.

ennis, depends on the country. and not to get nerd, i think it is plausible that it is logonormal. and i don't think reducing variance is possible in the modern world because of the importance of individual choice. my assertion is that the intial die must be loaded so that rebellion is canalized toward particular paths.

The fact is, although you can endlessly harp on the fact that Saudi and Pakistan have 'distanced' themselves from 'true Islam', that these 'deviant' interpretations of Islam DO exist, and in fact they are gaining in popularity. Sorry folks, but I just don't know what to think when I read that an Islamic man can divorce his wife by uttering just three words, or that one man's testimony is worth that of two women, according to Islamic law.

lognormal.

meena, those laws are not the true islam. we should mass produce buttons... :)

@PG

I have one attitude to individuals, another another attitude to crowds.

Suppose that a Gallup pollster were to ask me "What do you think of Muslims?". I would think of an undifferentiated crowd of Muslims, not an individual Muslim. Then I would say, "No, I don't like Muslims".

On the other hand, suppose that a Gallup pollster were to ask me "What do you think of Shah Rukh Khan?". I would think of an individual Muslim, not an undifferentiated crowd of Muslims. Then I would say, "Yes, I like him".

My point is this: the Gallup poll only elicited the attitude to an undifferentiated crowd of people, not the attitude to an individual. The attitude to an undifferentiated crowd of people is always negative. The only kinds of tolerable crowds are a wedding crowd or the crowd at a classical music concert.

You're just kidding, right?

The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984.

Ok, couple of differences in case you didn't notice. The victims of the priests were not murdered. Crucual difference there. And as the poll showed Catholics themselves feel the Church has done a poor job of handling the situation. That is not what the Muslim community is doing. Instead of doing some introspection and analysis of their own community, they blame a laundrylist of political and external issues for their own failings.

So 5,000 priests have been accused of molestation,

From the New York Times:

Counterterrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain are supporters of Al Qaeda. Among that number, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in camps connected with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Link

Not exactly a small number either...

Do we walk around asking priests to condemn sexual abuse and ask them why they aren't doing so more loudly?

Perhaps you missed this :

Dioceses around the country have spent at least $1.06 billion on settlements with victims, verdicts, legal fees, counseling and other expenses since 1950, the AP found. A compensation fund of as much as $120 million announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., pushed the figure past the billion-dollar mark. Link

Hardly like the churches and the priests are being given a free pass.

Maybe that is what is needed here too: People filing lawsuits against the mosques where the fundamentalist ideology is taught and against the people who invite extremist imams from overseas to come and preach their hatred. Have any such lawsuits been filed ? If anything the Muslim mosques and imams have been given a free pass for their anti-social attitudes.

razib - Thanks for the correction. :) Well, at least I know what lognormal is. ;)

Hardly like the churches and the priests are being given a free pass. Maybe that is what is needed here too: People filing lawsuits against the mosques where the fundamentalist ideology is taught and against the people who invite extremist imams from overseas to come and preach their hatred.

Churches got sued not for ideology, but for 40 years of systematic cover-up. Read the wikipedia article I linked to. The refused to call police, hid priests, denied it was happening, paid people off, etc. That's a very serious crime.

ennis,

my argument is this: if southern baptists were the normal xtian, i suspect we'd see a lot more abortion clinic shootings, because the typical xtian is more likely to start out over at one end to begin with. most radicals don't get born in that culture, the rebel and radicalize. the key is to change the reference from which one radicalizes. e.g., i know a unitarian-universalist who scandalized her family when became a methodist. thank god she wasn't born assemblies of god, she'd be dancing with snakes now.

Why try to change the whole distribution instead of just the incentives of the key few? Public health officials who work with STDs try to change the behavior of those who are doing most of the spreading, that's more important than trying to change everybody's behavior. For fighting AIDS would you rather target the high risk, or reduce everybody's sexual partners by one?

blocquote>
Churches got sued not for ideology, but for 40 years of systematic cover-up. Read the wikipedia article I linked to. The refused to call police, hid priests, denied it was happening, paid people off, etc. That's a very serious crime.

You said "Do we walk around asking priests to condemn sexual abuse and ask them why they aren't doing so more loudly"

And my answer was, yes, to the tune of a billion dollars. The church is being taught a harsh lesson that their 50 years of cover up will not be excused. They have been forced to clean up their organization if they will not cooperate by legal means. And it is not as though they teach the priests to abuse children in the churches, unlike the hatred being taught in the mosques by the extremist imams. Hasn't there been a coverup in the mosques when they have known about extremist groups using the cover of the mosque to coordinate their activities ? Haven't undercover news reporters in the US and Europe secretly taped Imams calling for the death of the "kuffars and infidels" ? And until those tapes were aired, nobody bothered to inform the authorities ? isn't that a coverup too ?

Why try to change the whole distribution instead of just the incentives of the key few?

that's a brush fire strategy. i'm looking at "root causes" here. i don't think terrorists are that strange, i think they are normal people who respond to particular contextual cues. one of those is the social milieu in which they develop. here is an assertion i once heard (1990) at a dinner party of brown scientists and doctors of the muslim faith: "i agree with khomeini's intent, but not his methods." most people agreed, while a few people wanted to assert some of his methods were acceptable. my point is that you have a weirdo listening to this, and they might take the next step and thing, "well, perhaps his methods are OK." (methods meaning terrorism) you need to change it so that the average european and american muslim would never think of praising khomeni's ideals as opposed to the dirty reality.

(i am aware khomeni is not satan, but, i do think that his regime turned nasty and brutish after 1981 or so)

p.s. i think there is a different between the brit-bombers and al aqsa martyers brigade. the former are far more unpredictable and 'nihlistic,' they are products of the west rather than a regional conflict.

For fighting AIDS would you rather target the high risk, or reduce everybody's sexual partners by one?

to transform this analogy to what i'm getting at: reduce the median number of sexual partners from 6 to 3, and the "high risk" category of more than 20 will drop A LOT. or, more likely, "high risk" will get redefined to 16.

Ismat, you stated:

"As a journalist and an active Muslim-American, I have to disagree with this statement. Muslims speaking out against extremists just does not make the news. As an Ahmadi Muslim, I know that my religious community (numbering 220 million worldwide) has been extremely vocal and active against extremism and terrorism long before 9/11. Yet the number of Americans who know of or have heard of our peaceful/tolerant views and activities against such nonsense is virtually nil. "Muslims Bomb Subways/WTC/Etc." makes for better headlines and sells more papers than "Muslims speak out against extremism." I invite anyone to do a search on this subject, my community, and try to find the media coverage. In relation to the activities and work the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does worldwide, the disparity in coverage is particularly egregious."

I appreciate your dissent, and I understand where you're coming from. Sure, it makes a better headline to say "Freak Christian Organization Protests Soldier's Funerals" and focus on the few while not necessarily focusing on the much larger body of Christians who shake their heads in shame and anger at Fred Phelps actions, but as some others have pointed out, and I have, the Spanish Muslim leaders didn't issue a fatwa against bin Laden until a year after he'd had trains in Madrid blown up. Does it really take a year to get people to agree that they should denounce bin Laden in the strongest religious terms possible if he's really flying in the face of Islam as much as we hear? The CAIR jointly issued a fatwa last year with the Fiqh Council of North America (http://www.cair-net.org/includes/Anti-TerrorList.pdf) issued a fatwa 4 years after 9/11 against terrorism. Again, if the Koran is so vehemently against violence and terrorists are anathema to Islam, it shouldn't take that long to make a statement against terrorism.

Couple that with, as others have pointed out, the nature of how people are treated in the Muslim world, often in the name of Allah, and people in the US get worried. It's one thing to point out what the Koran says and another to see how people act in the name of Allah.

But I hold the same concern about fundamentalist Christian sects that share many of the same traits as fundamentalist Islamic sects. If Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell were to grow a beard and start preaching the Koran, their thinking and preaching would fit in nicely in Iran, and Muqtada Al-Sadr, shaved and in a suit would fit in nicely in some backwater Baptist church.

But I hold the same concern about fundamentalist Christian sects that share many of the same traits as fundamentalist Islamic sects. If Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell were to grow a beard and start preaching the Koran, their thinking and preaching would fit in nicely in Iran, and Muqtada Al-Sadr, shaved and in a suit would fit in nicely in some backwater Baptist church.

i think this is a non-trivial point, so i will make it explicit: i do not believe islamic radicals would fit into most baptist churches psychologically. i think a better analogy is christian reconstructionism. i think the problem is that most 'moderate' muslims have opinions which would make a southern baptist comfortable.

Not to change the channel or nothin', but this really irked me...... wtf!?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400589_pf.html

familiarity. whites raised among browns always say, "oh, so you're muslim," when they hear my name (e.g., a smokin' blonde i met once from marin whose best friend was crispy).

To borrow a phrase you used once, your "robotic repetition" of your blonde fetish always works itself into several threads regardless of its relevance... however is she being any different in her attitude towards you based on what she superficially perceives about Muslims than you towards her based on the superficial persona of the good looking blonde stereotype ? Your comments hardly show any great interest in her beyond the way she looked.

however is she being any different in her attitude towards you based on what she superficially perceives about Muslims than you towards her based on the superficial persona of the good looking blonde stereotype

you missed my point. normally people assume i'm hindu. she was being knowledgeable in ascertaining my origins must be muslim from my surname. and of course there is a difference between being a smokin' blonde and being a muslim.

Your comments hardly show any great interest in her beyond the way she looked.

*nod* and your point being?

Vikram: Quit hating on the blondes ;)

*nod* and your point being?

Point being her interest in you was affected by your being a Muslim, just as your interest in her was affected by she being a blonde (bottle or natural). Both superficial reasons. Neither one of you had any great interest beyond that one attribute in each other. Kind of fitting in that way...

Vikram: Quit hating on the blondes ;)

Nothing against blondes artificial or natural...just don't know what the fascination with a hair color is... ;)

Point being her interest in you was affected by your being a Muslim, just as your interest in her was affected by she being a blonde (bottle or natural).

what, are you a mind reader? we'd been friends for several years before she brought that issue up :) so if my being muslim (i'm not) was an issue it didn't surface verbally for several years.

yes, i have a fixation on blondes, but you shouldn't read too much into it or assume that it can be used as an analogy in a social discussion.

yes, i have a fixation on blondes, but you shouldn't read too much into it or assume that it can be used as an analogy in a social discussion.

Ok, for someone who doesn't want "too much" read into their pet fetish, you sure make it quite widely known in several of your posts. Then why do you mention it at all ? And would you have been friends with her is she wasn't a "smokin' blonde" (sic) ?

And would you have been friends with her is she wasn't a "smokin' blonde" (sic) ?

as long as she wasn't fat, probably. and i've been making my fetish widely known since the initiation of this blog in the summer of 2004. it really isn't worth comment. just like my perpetual use of the term brown.

as long as she wasn't fat, probably. and i've been making my fetish widely known since the initiation of this blog in the summer of 2004. it really isn't worth comment. just like my perpetual use of the term brown.

Yeah, is all fine to diss the fatties and the non-blondes, till the blondes diss you... waaaah ;-)

I haven't read through all the posts as i'm falling asleep but I've heard the "why haven't the good ones spoken out" question a lot... one answer was "their organizations" but I've got another and a cool list detailing it!

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html

The problem however is that whatever these organization or individuals say, it never gets any media coverage...so how's the 'average american' supposed to know? It's a big, sad, uninformed and illinformed cycle.

Razib's point about "root causes" is spot-on.

Either the jihadis and their supports are hypocrites in a religious sense;

Or there is something fundamentally wrong with the teachings of orthodox Islam, if the faith is triggering such behaviour on such a wide scale.

Or maybe both are correct in some measure, depending on the specific teaching, its interpretation, and the specific Muslim. I don't know the definitive answer.

In any case, someone on the Pickled Politics discussion blog recently made an excellent analogy, about how taking out the mosquitoes isn't good enough; in order to really solve the problem, you have to drain the swap. Ties into Razib's comment about "root causes". I think that this is the fundamental issue.

Pickled Politics does currently have some excellent parallel discussions underway here, here and here, so please do check them out if you happen to have some spare time.

PS : I also made some remarks about the need to address the root causes on the recent "Statistics of Fear" thread here on SM, as summarised here and here in case anyone missed it.

this was a really fascinating discussion. i am not big on reading through a whole thread of comments in one go, but i did just that.

razib, i do have an out for you on the apostasy thing.

under islamic law, there is no rule against a non-believer, jew, christian, hindu being a Muslim jurist. muslim legal jurists have been pragmatic enough to accept (for some part in the classical age) that you don't have to believe in God to follow the right methods and derive islamic law. as such, if you studied enough legal theory you could defend your self quite ably from charges of apostasy. if, in the event, that a muslim tells you that it IS not allowed for a non-believer to be a jurist, you then can ask them to prove it, in which case the burden of production shifts to them.

I don't know why the average Muslim, with bills to pay, children to feed, has to be blamed for 'not speaking out' - blame the Muslim intelligentsia, Muslim power elites, Muslim oilmen, Muslim nobility, the hypocritical Bin Ladens who livee Westernized lifestyles and do nothing to change the mores of Saudi Arabia, blame these people - don't blame Joe Muslim. When some Hindu dopes go and torch the house of a Muslim, or rant about Valentine's Day, or tear down a mosque, does anyone expect Joe Hindu to speak up? Hell no. What is Joe Muslim supposed to do, anyway? Picket by himself on some corner?

taking out the mosquitoes isn't good enough; in order to really solve the problem, you have to drain the swap.

Major typo in my post #76: that should have said ".....you have to drain the swamp".

Well, why shouldn't Americans be suspicious of Muslims? They're different religiously and ethnically from us -- the classic causes of human violent conflict -- and 19 of them bombed us on 9/11. Who knows how many terrorist plots hatched by Muslims on U.S. soil have been prevented since then.

If I were Muslim (living in a Muslim country), I'd be suspicious of Americans, too, for the same reasons (different ethnicity, religion, and cultural values), and wouldn't want millions of them moving to my country.

So the simple solution is: severely restrict Muslim immigration to the U.S., and the U.S. (and rest of the West) quit attacking Muslim countries at home. Then no one has to worry about racism, religious discrimination, terrorism, or war. Different peoples, different countries. Real simple.

It's not wanting to keep people who are different from you religiously and ethnically out of your country that's weird or creepy. It's thinking you can let them in and have everyone get along fine that's weird and creepy.

Any thoughts? Go ahead and call me a racist, I don't care. How many of you would've voted for Sonia Gandhi as India's prime minister? Yeah, didn't think so.

Bryant, your analysis is simplistic and severly misguided. Those who seek (from the Islamic world) to pick a fight with us will not stop if we restrict immigration and stop 'attacking' them. It may mitigate some risk, but there are larger forces in play (and over many decades) which simple isolationist or segregationist policies can solve. IF it were that simple, it would have already been employed.

Global economics and flow of information means there is no way one can isolate themselves, ducking their head into sand and consider the problem solved. This conflict festers on many levels - religion, power, internal-external politics, economics, etc.

Terrorist acts are tactical/strategic events having greater designs that 'we are different therefore we hate each other'. It is about gaining power among locals (Salafists attempt to coopt their own populations), it is about convinient eexcuses and rationale to wage war. War is merely the physical manifestation of this conflict and it is impossible for either side to 'disengage' themselves. Conflict is natural and it must be resolved using all tools in one's poesssion - education, economics, aid, military, propoganda, etc. Using the right tool in the apprppriate is something that can be debated, but the conflict has always existed and despite American strength, through our own short sighted policies, particularly from the 70s on with major steam picking up in the 90s, we have allowed this threat to grow right under our noses.

It isn't that simple and I would recommend picking up many books to study this subject in depth and breadth from multiple sources to give yourself a more well grounded base of information to draw your conclusions from. By the way, Sonia Gandhi would have become Prime Minister, though, moving to that position she would draw more fire and set herself up for failure.

GujuDude wrote:

"Those who seek (from the Islamic world) to pick a fight with us will not stop if we restrict immigration and stop 'attacking' them."

Why don't we try it and see? OBL himself said the reason for 9/11 was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, plus the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Attacking Iraq isn't helping. They are attacking the West because the West is attacking them.

"Global economics and flow of information means there is no way one can isolate themselves, ducking their head into sand and consider the problem solved."

You're the one ducking your head in the sand if you think large numbers of people of different races, cultures, and languages can live peacefully and profitably together in one political entity. History doesn't give many examples, and is rife with counterexamples. Constant ethnic conflict is the norm in such situations, and we sure have it here in the U.S. now. Why people think America is not subject to the biological loyalties of its citizens is a mystery.

Again, my point is: the risk/reward ratio of Western societies allowing large numbers of Muslims in is weighted heavily in favor of *severe* immigration restriction. The risks are enormous, and the rewards are few (and can be attained through highly selective immigration easily).

Any thoughts? Go ahead and call me a racist, I don't care. How many of you would've voted for Sonia Gandhi as India's prime minister? Yeah, didn't think so.

that's an ill-informed statement. in a parliamentary democracy, the base criterion she needed to meet to be appointed the pm was ... getting elected to the parliament by her constituency . she did so. the machinations to get to the PM's post are party politics and another matter.

a word of advice from a graybeard.

often times it makes sense to step back - and look not at the content - but at the forum, the framing, the background - to grasp the message - it's what's called looking at the big picture.

sometimes, when it seems difficult to extricate oneself from the situation - step back and look back into history or people's memoirs.

in context of this discussion i woudl strongly recommend obasan, by joy kogawa - memories of her family's internment in canada as enemy aliens through the last few years of ww ii.

hairy-d:

According to Wikipedia:

"During her campaign, her opponents (mainly the Bharatiya Janata Party) played up her foreign birth...In May 1999, Sonia Gandhi offered to resign from the Congress Party leadership after three senior leaders (Sharad Pawar, Purno A. Sangma and Tariq Anwar) challenged her right to try to become India's Prime Minister, given that she was not born of Indian blood or soil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi

My point is that it's hypocritical for South Asians on this website to cry "America's so racist!" when their society is just as "racist" as the U.S. The only difference is that very, very few Westerners actually want to live in South Asia, so desi "racism" doesn't get tested much. When it is tested, as with Sonia Gandhi, it fails.

Not that I have a problem with that. Why would Indians want to be led by an Italian, or vide versa? "Racism" is just the simple, eternal reality that people tend to care more about those who are biologically closer to them than those that are further away. As evidence, I offer the existence of this weblog.

Sigh.

Conflict exists at every level. The bloodiest war the United States fought was its own civil war. History is rife with examples of people fighting for any and every reason. Your reasoning can be applied to boat loads of Irish who came to these shores to be greeted by the abuse and mistrust of the local population and so on.

OBL's excuse for attacking the United States was just a reason to pick a fight. Their goal has matured (with strong influence for the EIJ/Zawahiri) to establish a Caliphate and Islamic dominion. Disengaging and segregating, limiting immigration won't work. Plus, this country isn't being flooded by muslim immigrants.

Strategically, your propositon is a static solution to a dynamic and evolving world. It's like the French Maginot line. Static. Those holding off in siege warfare are doomed to fail. This war/conflict is very fluid and challenges all dimensions of where war can be fought.

Seperating the people as you ask only delays the inevitable. What do you do when people from these places put strain on YOUR homelands via their interal policies? I'm not going to call YOU names becames that doesn't further discussion here. Your positions are based upon personal bias rather than information drawn from various sources. I didn't say your head was in sand, I said that policy you propose would be analogous to it on a mass scale. My head isn't in sand either.

The United States has had a selective immigration policy, Europe hasn't. Combine that with local European prejudice and socio-political systems, it hasn't created the best environment for integration. From all facts, the United States has been pretty successful in integrating differen populations here. The problem isn't here locally.

My point is that it's hypocritical for South Asians on this website to cry "America's so racist!" when their society is just as "racist" as the U.S. The only difference is that very, very few Westerners actually want to live in South Asia, so desi "racism" doesn't get tested much. When it is tested, as with Sonia Gandhi, it fails.

as a general comment - the bulk posts are usually a gab and wank fest but they are the necessary manure from which the leaders draw sustenance - the leaders of tomorrow need to believe that their actions are driven by a higher purpose and representative of their communities at large - gandhi and mlk couldnt have emerged had they not been able to capture the aspirations fo their core communities - and that's what i see happening on this forum. so keep it up y'all.

My point is that it's hypocritical for South Asians on this website to cry "America's so racist!" when their society is just as "racist" as the U.S. The only difference is that very, very few Westerners actually want to live in South Asia, so desi "racism" doesn't get tested much. When it is tested, as with Sonia Gandhi, it fails.

Which do you think is a better term for South Asians to refer to themselves? 1) "brownz" 2) sand n*** ? 3) or should we just merge with African Americans, viz. "blackz"

We have an identity issue at the moment, and it would be interesting to hear a persepctive from the majority community.

thx.

GujuDude writes:

"Conflict exists at every level. The bloodiest war the United States fought was its own civil war. History is rife with examples of people fighting for any and every reason."

Most of history's big wars have been ethnic battles over resources, not civil wars among ethnically similar populations. You've chosen an anomalous example and presented it as typical.

"Plus, this country isn't being flooded by muslim immigrants."

Not yet, but the numbers are growing. Europe's already flooded and feeling the pain in London, Madrid, Holland, France -- everywhere. I assume you saw the burning banlieus and towns across the country last year? I don't want that here, and am not calmed by reassurances that "American Muslims are nothing like European ones".

"Strategically, your propositon is a static solution to a dynamic and evolving world. It's like the French Maginot line. Static. Those holding off in siege warfare are doomed to fail. This war/conflict is very fluid and challenges all dimensions of where war can be fought."

That's all very deep-sounding, but it's obvious that 1) severely restricting Muslim immigration to the West and 2) ceasing military attacks in Muslim lands will seriously reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks here. If Britain didn't have a million Pakistanis AND participated in the Iraq War, they wouldn't have been bombed on 7/7.

"Seperating the people as you ask only delays the inevitable. What do you do when people from these places put strain on YOUR homelands via their interal policies?"

What do you consider "the inevitable"? Policy changes can lead to different results. The second sentence I don't understand either. Clarification?

"The United States has had a selective immigration policy, Europe hasn't. Combine that with local European prejudice and socio-political systems, it hasn't created the best environment for integration. From all facts, the United States has been pretty successful in integrating differen populations here. The problem isn't here locally."

Wow, you think the US has a "selective immigration policy"? Dude, we have no immigration policy. Anyone who can get across can stay. We have huge immigration problems in the U.S., which is why Buchanan's "State of Emergency" is the top book in the country this week.

Again, mass immigration is leading and will continue to lead to mass problems for the West. I can understand why South Asians would take the point of view that "immigration is good for the West"-- there are 1.5 billion of them, and as a group they don't have much land relative to their world population. But you can also understand why a white Westerner wouldn't want mass immigration from South Asia -- there are only about 1.1 billion of us, and we've snatched a lot of good land (American continents, Australia, Europe) so we want to hold onto it.

The world is like a big amoral Risk game, isn't it? I find both your and my points of view rational on this subject. Indeed, if I was an American-born desi I'd probably see things your way, and I assume your mind stretches enough to make the reverse statement.

I like "browns" but you'll lose people with it. They'll assume you mean Hispanics.

"when their society is just as "racist" as the U.S."

just a point of fact, for south asian americans their society is the US (contrary to the opinions of a few people on these boards).

I like "browns" but you'll lose people with it. They'll assume you mean Hispanics.

hispanics already have enough names. their various ethnicities, + hispanic + latino.

i proactively use "brown" in an white environment, and people accept it after a little confusion. i was aggressive enough that a vietnamese american friend started using it in medical school, and the brown med students also started using it after initial confusion (personal communication).

bryant

You want to restrict just muslims or every brown person outhere?

BTW, Sonia Gandhi led the party as the PM nominee and won the election and refused the PMship after the win and passed it on to Manmohan Singh. So, overwhelmingly, Majority of Indians voted for her directly or indirectly. No one knew that she would decline the position after the win, in anycase she is more powerful than the Prime Minister.

Mainly Muslims, since they have a history (recent and farther back) of conflict with white Christian countries. With the nuclear terrorism possibility it's just not worth it from our end, though a highly selective system allowing a small number of especially useful Muslims is fine.

Hindus I don't have a problem with in the U.S., but I definitely believe the U.S should retain its white majority in order to retain its envy-of-the-world culture. I also find it really odd that a statement like that should be controversial, since no one would argue it for other countries.

I've always wondered about Hindus in the US, though: how come they don't give their kids American first names like East Asian immigrants do? I find it irritating -- I know Hindu guys born in the U.S., with Hindu spouses also born in the U.S., who still don't even consider an American name for their kids. What's up with that? And then we're supposed to believe these kids are just as American as white kids? It makes no sense. If you want to be part of America, do what other immigrant groups have always done -- give your kids (or at least have your kids give their kids) American first names.

I (heart) Bobby Jindal for that reason.

Bryant:

My point is that it's hypocritical for South Asians on this website to cry "America's so racist!" when their society is just as "racist" as the U.S.

Thank you for livening up the site on a quiet Saturday. However, please be aware that this site is based in the United States and run by U.S. citizens plus one Canadian citizen. Our readers are from different places and ethnic origins, but this is an American-run site and we, the hosts, consider ourselves Americans. If you consider us any less American than you, we are not interested in hearing from you. If you do consider us as American as you, we invite you to make that clear in your comments, and we will then be happy to discuss any and all further matters with you. Peace.

Razib wrote:

"just a point of fact, for south asian americans their society is the US"

Fair enough, but what's your opinion on the first name thing I mention in post 94? I'm *much* more willing to accept a "Brian Patel" or "Greg Bhatia" than I am "Rajiv Patel" or "Sathish Singh" as 100% American. (or a "Steve Chang" instead of a "Wei-Zhou Chang", etc) It doesn't seem too much to ask that you give your kid's first name to the new homeland; the middle and last name I don't demand!

Don't I have a point?

give your kids (or at least have your kids give their kids) American first names.

Are Barack Obama, Karim Abdul Jabbar, Muhammed Ali, Shaquille O'Neal American names? They are as American as Apple pie.

I think you meant Christian/ Westernized names. Oh, well.

I'm *much* more willing to accept a "Brian Patel" or "Greg Bhatia" than I am "Rajiv Patel" or "Sathish Singh" as 100% American.

that, my friend, is your problem and not ours.

SM Intern writes:

"...this is an American-run site and we, the hosts, consider ourselves Americans. If you consider us any less American than you, we are not interested in hearing from you. If you do consider us as American as you, we invite you to make that clear in your comments, and we will then be happy to discuss any and all further matters with you."

That's kind of Soviet, isn't it? Instead of engaging people who disagree with you, attempting to persuade, etc., you threaten.

I don't see how someone who's an intern at an ethnically-based South Asian site can seriously say they are as American as someone with no such overseas ethnic ties (I've never even visited the two European countries my ancestors came from, and have only the slightest emotional tie to them). If you're 100% American at heart, you must be 0% South Asian, which you're obviously not since you're an intern here.

Immigrating is hard, I realize that, and so is having the dual affections and ties that come with the territory. My ancestors from Ireland and Germany had dual loyalties and ties, too (some of the Irish ones went back after a few years, in fact). All immigrants (and their kids, to a lesser degree) have them.

The key for a society that accepts immigrants is managing and, eventually, eliminating the dual affections and replacing them with sole loyalty to the host country. This of course is called assimilation, and it's an admirable goal -- indeed, it's the only way immigration can work, as we're finding out with Moroccans in Holland and Mexicans in California.

I take your post as a threat to ban my comments, which I think would be pretty shabby. I realize that some of my opinions may be unorthodox, but I haven't been crude or obnoxious or disrespectful or anything else that gets people banned normally.

If you can refute my points re mass immigration to the U.S./Hindu assmilation etc., then do so. If you can't, I suppose you'll go ahead and ban me. Your move.

t doesn't seem too much to ask that you give your kid's first name to the new homeland; the middle and last name I don't demand!

the point is not trivial, but, it lacks nuance. as a point of reality the popularity of first names varies in a manner that seems similar to random genetic drift over the course of american history (it isn't, contrary to popular perception, inflenced by movie stars, or cultural winds, that much). new names are created like mutants and become popular all the time. the key for east asians, and why they change their first names, is non-east asians can't really pronounce their tones correctly anyway, so they make sure to have a "western" name because their "real" name isn't going to be transformed into something different no matter what.

my own children will probably have "western" names, but i don't think that the naming issue is really anything more than a surface issue. there are regional variations in names in the USA, e.g., southerners tend to be more likely to use "last names" as first names (e.g., "Brooks" or "MacKenzie", the vast majority of puritans had hebrew names, or names like "justice" which referred to a trait, while southerners were more likely to have classical or germanic names). mormons tend to have made up names from the book of mormon. i think the naming issue isn't totally dismissable, but it is a symptom of difference, not a primary cause.

i tend to favor assimilation, and yes, the retention of the white anglo majority. but your arguments are dropping in like a hammer, so i don't think you are really getting anywhere but expressing your own frustration. strategy needs to be married to tactics.

I'm *much* more willing to accept a "Brian Patel" or "Greg Bhatia" than I am "Rajiv Patel" or "Sathish Singh" as 100% American

Well, whether you agree or not he has a point no? Chinese ppl invariably anglicize, like 90% I would guess. And names like, eg. "Razib" just reek of the rice paddies of Bengal :-) Why are "brownz" resisting this?

Pragmatically, many people do Anglicize - eg. Vikram becomes Vik, Naresh becomes Nick. And lots of brownz who do that are thought of as sell-outs by the greature brownitude.

That's kind of Soviet, isn't it? Instead of engaging people who disagree with you, attempting to persuade, etc., you threaten.

americans believe in private property. soviets muffled public discourse through government fiat. you shouldn't try to dictate if you are guest, but i don't expect that that will be a matter of choice soon anyhow.

Siddhartha writes:

"that, my friend, is your problem and not ours."

I don't know whose problem it is, but why is it unreasonable for a host country to expects that its immigrants -- or at least its immugrants' kids -- will give their kids first names of the host country?

Kush Tandon writes:

"Are Barack Obama, Karim Abdul Jabbar, Muhammed Ali, Shaquille O'Neal American names?"

They certainly are not, any more that "Chuck" and "Steve" are Indian names. Barack is a Kenyan name, since his father is from Kenya. Kareem-Abdul and Muhammad are, as I suspect you know, Muslim names. I don't know what the hell "Shaquille" is. None of them are American names, any more than "Mehmet" is a German name, even though I'm sure you can find Turkish kids born in Germany named Mehmet.

Yes, by "American" names I mean Christian, Westernized, English names. But you knew that.

Interesting about the East Asian tones, Razib, but I think there's a hole in the theory: Japanese names are easy for Americans to pronounce, but anecdotally I don't see Japanese immigrants giving their kids American first names less frequently than Chinese-American. I think it has to do with something more pro-assimilationist in East Asian-American immigrants than in South Asian. But maybe there's a counterpoint I'm not aware of.

Yes, by "American" names I mean Christian, Westernized, English names. But you knew that.

popular male baby names now

1 Jacob - hebrew
2 Michael - hebrew
3 Joshua - hebrew
4 Matthew - hebrew
5 Ethan - hebrew
6 Andrew - greek
7 Daniel - hebrew
8 Anthony - latin
9 Christopher - greek
10 Joseph - hebrew

in other words, there are no names in the top 10 of germanic origin. like william.

correction: anthony might originally be etruscan. the point is that names are not fundamentally associated with a particular culture. the % of names like ezekial or abraham in the early republic would seem "foreign" to a modern american.

Razib --

I'm not "dictating," I'm asking not to be banned. Sure it's SM Intern's prerogative, but I still think her phrasing was a little USSR-ish (state X or we will not listen to you!).

Risible writes:

"Pragmatically, many people do Anglicize - eg. Vikram becomes Vik, Naresh becomes Nick."

Fair enough -- I know lots of desi Jays -- but why not go all the way and take/give an American first name?

"And lots of brownz who do that are thought of as sell-outs by the greature brownitude."

This is my point, and I think this refutes Razib's tonal idea. I can't imagine Asian-American guys thinking that a "Mark Chang" is a sellout. Why do brownz?

I can't imagine Asian-American guys thinking that a "Mark Chang" is a sellout.

bryant, my point is that they simply have no real option to have a tonal name and have people pronounce it correctly. east asians in east asia have alternative western names for business and what not because they know that westerners will never be able to say their name correctly. if you say the same name phonetically with a different tonal structure you change the name, or, worst, turn it into a different word (e.g., chinese people who westerners call "bathtub" because they do the "bathtub" tones for that sequence of consanants and vowels). i am not denying there is some truth to your point (east asians tend not be very attached to religion, and can switch more often, so they have no religious injunction to use a particular sort of name like jews or muslims), but really, there is a big difference in pronouncing a name like "amit" vs. an vs. however the hell you are supposed to pronounce "hsien" (whatever tone).

Razib writes:

"the point is that names are not fundamentally associated with a particular culture. the % of names like ezekial or abraham in the early republic would seem "foreign" to a modern american."

Biblical names, while Hebrew in origin, are obviously part of the Christian, Western, Anglo tradition. I think your point is self-refuting -- Biblical names are overwhelmingly popular today in America, and they were in Colonial times as well, as you point out. So how does that support that "the % of names like ezekial or abraham in the early republic would seem "foreign" to a modern american."? There are fluctuations in which Biblical names are more popular now and then, but they're all taken from the same tradition.

p.s. this is why japanese don't do this, their language is not tonal, but flat and phonetic. the problem in that case is westerners tend to add accents to their names.

I don't know whose problem it is, but why is it unreasonable for a host country to expects that its immigrants -- or at least its immugrants' kids -- will give their kids first names of the host country?

sure chief

Razib writes:

"they simply have no real option to have a tonal name and have people pronounce it correctly"

I hear your point, and it holds for Chinese names -- but my counter was why then Japanese-American parents don't give their kids Japanese names like "Taki" or "Toru" which are as easy to pronounce as "Amit" or "Neelu".
If it's really a tonal thing, and not a regional cultural thing, then by your theory Japanese-American kids would be more likely to have Japanese names than Chinese-American kids are to have Chinese names, and I don't think that's the case. That's why I think it's mostly cultural.

There are fluctuations in which Biblical names are more popular now and then, but they're all taken from the same tradition.

traditions are not closed. cultures are probability distributions of ideas and dispositions. whatever general truths you have, your specifics are problematic because you are projecting the idea of america as a platonic ideal, a set of axiomatic propositions. to some extent there are a few core propositions (adherence to the constitution), but in general it has evolved organically. until this century there was a fundamentally assumption (at least after 1840 when the irish immigrants showed up and "de-americanized" the church) that one could not truly be a full american unless one was protestant. by the 1950s a catholic-protestant-jew consensus developed. fixing on specific elements, aside from essentials like life, liberty, etc. (e.g., "your name isn't david!") seems infantile. of course, most humans aren't too bright and such things are important, but in an intellectual conversation fixating on emotional impulses seems a little wrongheaded.

That's why I think it's mostly cultural.

i agree that that is the reason for why south asians "keep their names." but, i wanted to make clear that the analogy is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. i think the main reason is "religious" (i don't know what hindu conventions about naming is). e.g., christian south asians often have "western names," as one of the bloggers here. but the thing is, they consider "western" names as part of their culture (christianity has been in south india longer than in england).

I don't know whose problem it is, but why is it unreasonable for a host country to expects that its immigrants -- or at least its immugrants' kids -- will give their kids first names of the host country?

By that token, one should only name kids in Amreeka, like Abey, Adriel, Anoki, Onida - these are Native America names, the orginal owners of this country, and every sunsequently should have followed that.

I think manifest destiny is getting into your head, and even names are not out of bound.

re: the religion thing. east asians tend to secular, them most secular of american groups. so i think that explains why on many cultural issues they are pretty pragmatic. do as the romans do, because they don't have many divine commandments to follow. i think the reason that south asians retain non-anglicized names is why some jews do: there are religious assoications. there is an element of ghettoization, but, i think there is also an element of fundamental piety (e.g., the calvinists of new englands used old testament names in part because they perceived themselves to be latter day hebrews).

Razib,

Are you saying Japanese immigrants to the US give their kids Japanese names more often than Chinese immigrants to the US give their kids Chinese names? I've never observed that, but if it's true it validates your idea.

In case a lot of you didn't notice there is this guy named eteraz (comment#78) he is extremely vocal and against the fanatic muslims. Visit his blog and you will see a long series of posts on issues like that.
I think we all should encorouge reformists like him. But don't you dare call him moderate :)

Are you saying Japanese immigrants to the US give their kids Japanese names more often than Chinese immigrants to the US give their kids Chinese names? I've never observed that, but if it's true it validates your idea.

no. (one might note that the japanese immigrants to the USA in the early 20th century were encouraged by their government to convert to the religions of new countries and take up their names because they were excess peasants that japan was glad to get rid of)

Razib writes:

"i agree that that is the reason for why south asians "keep their names." but, i wanted to make clear that the analogy is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is."

No, I agree with you, I don't think it's 100% clear-cut.

"traditions are not closed. cultures are probability distributions of ideas and dispositions. whatever general truths you have, your specifics are problematic because you are projecting the idea of america as a platonic ideal, a set of axiomatic propositions."

Not really -- I'm all for the expanding definition of America. It seems that what we're really debating is the speed and extent of the expansion. "Muhammad" is not an American first name and never will be; the name "Antonin" isn't American, it's Italian, and a US Supreme Court Justice having that 1st name doesn't change that.

All the Polish, Italian, etc. immigrants shed their ethnic first names, the Pawels and Paolos becoming Pauls. So while America culture isn't hermetically sealed, it's not nearly as porous as some on this board seem to think/desire, for understandable but ultimatley untenable ethnic reasons. Like Antonin, Rajiv will never be an American first name.

I take your post as a threat to ban my comments, which I think would be pretty shabby. I realize that some of my opinions may be unorthodox, but I haven't been crude or obnoxious or disrespectful or anything else that gets people banned normally.

Barack is a Kenyan name, since his father is from Kenya. Kareem-Abdul and Muhammad are, as I suspect you know, Muslim names. I don't know what the hell "Shaquille" is. None of them are American names, any more than "Mehmet" is a German name, even though I'm sure you can find Turkish kids born in Germany named Mehmet.

Yes, by "American" names I mean Christian, Westernized, English names. But you knew that.

I disagree with your views. But that's neither here nor there: it happens to be true of several people on this list. I welcome that.

More to the point, your views are dangerously intolerant of diversity. You're one teeny tiny step away from saying that only white Christians should be in America, and the others can go hop off a cliff. You're welcome to hate yourself, of course. But don't make it normative for others.

Rajiv will never be an American first name.

Thanks for describing the America you'd like to live in. You'll be alone in that fantasy world.

I'll go on record as saying I hope you get banned. It's not up to me, of course. But that's my hope. Your discourse is indeed (and I quote you) "crude, obnoxious and disrespectful." In one stroke, you insult both naming traditions and citizenship, two things that people take very seriously indeed. How you came to adulthood without understanding this is a total mystery. Perhaps you do understand.

I predict you will get banned. I know people like you: you'll get more and more provocative until someone satisfies your martyrdom complex. And they will. And in a day or two, we'll forget you.

My 2 American cents.

bryant,

where can i find the Book of American Names? speak with the voice of a priori, so i want to see an explication of the axioms/premises somewhere.

Re: Bryant...wow, crackers these days don't have anything better to do than fixate on desi first names? What a loser.

Heh heh.

I trust Rajni the Monkey, blissed out on banana liquor, has done the necessary.

[hiccup]... the needful only! [brrrp]

Razib (#100):

i tend to favor assimilation, and yes, the retention of the white anglo majority.

The retention of the white anglo majority? That's wonderful.

aww.. man... i was just going to change my name ... hmmm Chad Chopra ... there's a nice ring to it...

i love you rajni. are you single? is it true you look like linda bonham carter in POTA.

helena... helena... my amore makes my mind slip

"but I definitely believe the U.S should retain its white majority in order to retain its envy-of-the-world culture"

Bryant,

People from every race, color, religion help retain America its "envy of the world culture" and not just white people. Forget us south asians, every other community out their would find that offensive and racist. Also, i don't know why you are worried about Asians so much, the major chunk of the immigrant population comes from down south.

Sorry for dropping the discussion all, but I was banned by the moderator. I'm on a friend's computer now. Sure this ISP will get banned too, so this'll be my last post here.

Mr Kobayashi writes:

"More to the point, your views are dangerously intolerant of diversity."

Historically, diversity leads to racial conflict that often ends in war. Ethnic/racial/religious diversity is an incredibly stupid thing for a country to strive for; see the USSR, see Yugoslavia, see India being partitioned into three countries in the first three decades of its existence. Diversity doesn't work. It just doesn't. I'm intolerant of policies that lead to the unnecessary dissolution of my country, so I'm intolerant of diversity. I also find you dangerously intolerant of assimilation and sane immigration practices.

Mr. Kobayashi writes:

" (quoting Bryant) 'Rajiv will never be an American first name.'
Thanks for describing the America you'd like to live in."

Thanks for snipping my quote out of context. I said:

"All the Polish, Italian, etc. immigrants shed their ethnic first names, the Pawels and Paolos becoming Pauls. So while America culture isn't hermetically sealed, it's not nearly as porous as some on this board seem to think/desire, for understandable but ultimatley untenable ethnic reasons. Like Antonin, Rajiv will never be an American first name."

...but you cut out the three European first names that I said are not American names (Pawel, Paolo, Antonin) and kept only the Indian one (Rajiv). That's just blatant intellectual dishonesty. Then you said

"You're one teeny tiny step away from saying that only white Christians should be in America, and the others can go hop off a cliff."

Since your surname is Kobayashi, I'd be curious to know your views on whether Japan should open itself up to mass Third World immigration. I suspect you'd be in line with 98%+ of Japanese and say "no way," which would reveal the inconsistency of your views on the matter. Whites aren't supposed to be able to retain their lands, but others are. That's gotta change.

Razib writes:

"where can i find the Book of American Names?"

Come on, Razib. I know you're familiar with the concept of fuzzy sets, and you're *way* too smart to play dumb. We all know what an American name is, and it ain't Rajiv, Pawel, Antonin, Muhammad, or Paolo. American culture can stretch, as you and I discussed above, but not that much.

Rejimon writes:

"Re: Bryant...wow, crackers these days don't have anything better to do than fixate on desi first names? What a loser."

Interesting who gets banned and who doesn't. I'd almost call it racist.

Jatin writes:

"People from every race, color, religion help retain America its "envy of the world culture" and not just white people. Forget us south asians, every other community out their would find that offensive and racist."

Then why aren't people flocking from all over the world to immigrate to Mexico, or India, or Nigeria? No, they want to go to Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia...noticing the pattern? The idea that all groups have contributed equally to America's greatest-nation status is a P.C., everybody-feel-good, historically ignorant joke. We've only been open to immigration from other (non-European) parts of the world since the 1960s, and America already had its #1 post cemented long before then. People from around the world flocked to America because it was (and is) the world's greatest society, they didn't cause it once they got here. You've got the arrow of causation pointing in the opposite direction.

Have South and East Asians made valuable contributions to America in the past 40 years? Of course. But there's a reason they came here instead of staying in India or Taiwan: because the society created by whites in the 350 years before that was the greatest society the world had ever seen, and it afforded them great opportunity. But don't mistake Sabeer Bhatia for Thomas Jefferson.

And if we're being honest, people don't move to the U.S to be around Mexicans, African-Americans, or Native Americans. As soon as they can afford it, they move to white neighborhoods.

Finally Jatin, the fact that someone would find something "racist and offensive" doesn't mean they're correct on the issue. Besides, I find it racist and offensive that people wave Mexican flags in U.S. cities while marching for rights they don't have. I find it racist and offensive that a South Asian can put up a site called "Sepia Mutiny" without getting branded a hate group by the SPLC, while a white person who put up an openly racial site would get their head torn off. I find it racist and offensive that every other group in this country can openly discuss their group's interests, but when whites do so, they are labeled "racist". I find the blatant double standards perpetuated on this site to be racist and offensive. So Jatin, if you want to see the racist, look in the mirror. You too, SM Intern. We're all racists. It's only whites who get called on it -- for now.

very few Westerners actually want to live in South Asia, so desi "racism" doesn't get tested much. When it is tested, as with Sonia Gandhi, it fails.

Much before South Asians became fond of living in the West, it was Westerners who came in droves to live in South Asia. Most loved it. They came to seek fortune. We are just returning the favor.

You are a damn fool to suggest Sonia was a victim of racism. Millions love her. Can you imagine a woman who is an ethnic and religious minority be one of the most powerful persons in America? Salute India for what it is - a really tolerant society.

But she was never prime minister, was she, Jilted? Why do you suppose that is?

Now that I've finished laughing my head off, I'd like to say something quickly to those of you who want to jump all over Bryant: we should encourage the native stupidity of those like him. Why? Because in thirty years, when the immigration flow and the drain of wealth shifts and goes from West to East, when America slowly becomes a backwater full of fat white diabetics unable to afford their medication, or find a job, people like him won't know what hit them. And if the rest of us are smart, we'll have gotten our dual citizenships, invested in property overseas and fondly remember the fools who, complacently believing in their innate supremacy, made it all the more possible.

Bryant, dear, keep thinking the way you do - and please spread the gospel.

Don't feed the trolls.

This Bryant guy is a troll. The only people in America I have heard say surname are desi FOBs. Besides his knowledge of India and Indians in the US is quite revealing.

Dharma Queen, I hope you are only joking. If not, go figure where the Bryants of America pick there fuel from.

I'm not joking, but then, neither am I American. I'm Canadian, and I can gratefully say that most white Canadians are not nearly as naive as this Bryant creature is. They too will be making a killing off the idiocy of the Bryants of the world.

Jilted,

I'm flattered that you think I'm Indian based on my knowledge of India! I actually have a deep admiration and appreciation for India and its culture. I just think, in the larger picture, it doesn't make sense for countries to strive for ethnic diversity. Just look at Dharma, so proud of her dual citizenship and contemptuous of her host country. If you were me, honestly, would you want Dharma in your country?

Kobayashi: let's stipulate that I am a troll, whatever that means. Now, can you answer my question in post #130 above -- do you favor mass immigration from around the globe for Japan? So far your non-answers have consisted in hoping I get banned. Can we get some real argumentation from you?

I'm not joking, but then, neither am I American. I'm Canadian, and I can safely say that most white Canadians are not nearly as complacent or naive as this Bryant creature is. They too, I hope, will be making a killing off the idiocy of the Bryants of the world.

"If you were me, honestly, would you want Dharma in your country?" Oh dear, Bryant - if you really knew anything about India you'd never have put it quite like that. There are many people in many countries who would argue that Dharma is not in your country, and hasn't been for a very long time. You don't have to worry. (Or do you?)

I don't know whose problem it is, but why is it unreasonable for a host country to expects that its immigrants -- or at least its immugrants' kids -- will give their kids first names of the host country?

Interestingly enough, that's the French solution, not the American one. Your vision of the US sounds very much like France to me, in a number of different respects.

I'm Canadian, and I can safely say that most white Canadians are not nearly as complacent or naive as this Bryant creature is.

Don't get me started on popular reaction towards the Sikh mountie or the Legion Halls ;) I don't know where bigotry is greater, but there's enough to go around on both sides of the border.

Ennis,
We're not talking about bigotry, we're talking about navel-gazing, solipsistic complacency. And boy have the Americans got us beat.

Bryant

Again, Sonia Gandhi was elected to be the PMship, she turned down the PM position instead choosing to wield power behind the scenes, Indians overwhelmingly voted for her directly and indirectly in the last general election. She is the most powerful woman in India, and i would argue more powerful than the actual PM.

Also, the different communities i referred to are the ones that make up America, they including Whites are responsible for making American culture the envy of the world today. I get your point about a white person being labeled a racist when he speaks up on race, but that comes from the burden of racial history