There was an instance of a Spanish professor who hadnt shaved for a few days being arrested the other day too.

Boy, I'm really in trouble with that no-shaving thing!

Boy, I'm really in trouble with that no-shaving thing!

Yeah, he must have looked dark skinned and with a beard, you know what these moorish Spaniards are like.

Seriously man, I know excatly what you mean, in the aftermath of the London bombings last year, things were really bad. Especially after the Brazilian guy was shot, you had all slightly brown looking white dudes, Greeks, Italians etc, and mixed race black guys, who were on edge, and looked at with fear, and you even absorbed some of that paranoia yourself. It was horrible, and I was on the end of abuse and suspicion. This I suppose is all part of what the terrorists want, and is a partial victory for them.

i appreciate you using the word "brownz." wikipedia keeps deleting my article cuz it is a neologism.

"A flight was even diverted because passengers felt threatened by two orthodox jews praying in Hebrew!"

Both Hebrew and Arabic are semetic languages, link and sound similar. Maybe a blind guy was the one who thought he was amongst "suspicious" characters?

i appreciate you using the word "brownz." wikipedia keeps deleting my article cuz it is a neologism.

Hahahahahahahah.

The whole thing was cleared up once he promised to become monolingual in the future!

He told officials that he would not speak in a foreign language on his cell phone at an airport in the future.

I'm really disturbed by this. Can this be true? And these "inconveniences" need to start having consequences when Marshall John Smith is too stupid and ignorant and jumps the gun because he can't tell the difference between terroristic behavior and normal behavior. WTF.

Loquacious Desi: Ille ma, ellam nalla poite iruke. (No mom, everything's fine)
Vigilant crimefighter: Dude, did he just say Allah a couple of times?
Vigilant sidekick: Let's roll...

holy beans...
there goes my spanlishgujarahindi masala mix that i jabber in..
must be monolingual must be monolingual...and obviously english at that.
pretty messed up.

a lot of brown people work at sea-tac btw. i know some 'em through my fam.

Maybe a blind guy was the one who thought he was amongst "suspicious" characters?

Like David Chappelle's character from his show? The blind black KKK dude.

Marshall John Smith is too stupid and ignorant and jumps the gun because he can't tell the difference between terroristic behavior and normal behavior. WTF

The guy was investigated and allowed to board the next flight which means authorities did not consider the guy a threat. However, when [person x] comes to the authorities and says something is suspicious, you almost have to investigate by default.

Investigation proceeded and the guy got on the next flight, which meant authorities did their jobs as per direction. Air Marshalls weren't even involved, the SeaTac police were the responders.

They respond differently to different incidents, however. The way that they responded, and the fact that he promised only to speak english at airports in the future, shows that they viewed his actions as inherently suspicious. They could have just shown up and said, oh, you're talking in Tamil and English about last night's game? OK, you can go.

They could have just shown up and said, oh, you're talking in Tamil and English about last night's game? OK, you can go.

You are making assumptions here. Someone else, not airport security, flagged the guy down for supicious behavior. Now, put your self in Police shoes. A person comes up to you, informs you that he/she as observed something suspicious.

When talking about the English-Tamil thing, what you say is kosher, but authorities almost HAVE to check up other things, too because a person, not trained in the techniques of observation is feeding you info. Which means you're getting very vague data. Doing what you said above sounds great, but even a routine police stop for speeding involves more than simply stopping you and giving you a ticket (Car registration is checked, insurance, plates are checked to see if vehicle is hot or not, etc.)

With regards to the man promising NOT to speak Tamil at airports, well, he probably got scared, understandably so. There is no legal precedent from prohibiting him from speaking Tamil. If he wanted to push it, he could have allowed authorities to check up (which he did), and move along without promising anything.

NOW, if was let go on the condition he spoke ONLY English, his legal rights were violated because authorities cannot do that.

The guy was investigated and allowed to board the next flight which means authorities did not consider the guy a threat. However, when [person x] comes to the authorities and says something is suspicious, you almost have to investigate by default.

having been through a similar situation in the past when i was made to msis my flight - i believe the official policy is to disrupt flight patterns of the suspicious person - it isnt hard to do - but there is so much potential for abuse here - the person who files frivolous or unfounded complaints should be held accountable. you have these air marshalls who got rajcoomar because he looked funny!!! or the german guys who nailed the spanish prof because of his beard!!! or the bigot (!!!) who claimed to be speaking arabic and called the police on an arab guy... I just wish there was an organizational framework to penalize these guys.

i was once in a situation in which a person i was boarding with called the police on me on something like i am playing with the water supply... because i told him to clean up the place!! at moments like this - one feels so drained, one doesnt have the energy to argue or contest. police officers arent exactly thinking people. the best way is to answer the questions promptly and without indecision. another what aclu, what charter of rights... one just wants to get it out of the way - which pretty much explains why our man promised never to speak tamil at an airport. I just wish they would nail the sons of bitches who abuse the system out of malice or ignorance.

but there is so much potential for abuse here

- the person who files frivolous or unfounded complaints should be held accountable.

This has positive and negative consequences because in most cases ignorant folk aren't consciously filing frivolous complaints. They actually belive what they are saying is true. Educating the person when complaint has no merit would provide better long term results. As in, Sir, person X was speaking Tamil. It's a language from India.... Next time around hopefully he/she knows more than they did before.

I just wish there was an organizational framework to penalize these guys.

Again, if there is malicious intent involved, one should be penalized. But in most cases people are dumb and stupid. Educating them would provide longer term benefits. Penalty? You stay back, miss your flight, receive an 'education' and move along. Next time around you'll think twice whether you really believe if a threat exists (at the cost of not boarding the flight if you're wrong). If you're belief is strong enough that you still choose to risk your own flight, good for you, atleast you're willing to take the responsibility and consequences that come along if you're wrong.

the best way is to answer the questions promptly and without indecision. another what aclu, what charter of rights... one just wants to get it out of the way - which pretty much explains why our man promised never to speak tamil at an airport.

No argument here. The best way is cooperation. There should be a pranoid meter before boarding a flight. If anyone is that parnoid, they shouldn't board a flight. Most people lack the situation awareness and emotional stability to sort through a threat assessment logically. It sucks, but like I said, the penalty can be not boarding your flight. It is a simple, yet effective way of filtering poeple just complaining because their panties are bunched up or if they have a real concern.

Doing what you said above sounds great, but even a routine police stop for speeding involves more than simply stopping you and giving you a ticket (Car registration is checked, insurance, plates are checked to see if vehicle is hot or not, etc.)

Because you've been directly observed breaking the law. However, when "suspicious behavior" is called in, the first thing they do is assess whether the behavior is suspicious. If a white woman speaking swedish is called in, I'll bet they wont bother to detain her, make her miss her flight, and check her. Nor will she ever (on her own or to resolve the situation) agree to not speak Swedish in an airport again. As a matter of fact, the police might even go to the person making the report and warn them about making spurious claims.

On a related note, I once reported to the gate officials that there was some unacompanied baggage left behind by an asian woman. They couldn't even be bothered to call security.

An off-duty airline employee heard the conversation and informed the flight crew.

In this case an airline employee told the flight crew who called the police. When I saw unaccompanied baggage left behind for more than 10 minutes, they yawned.

On a related note, I once reported to the gate officials that there was some unacompanied baggage left behind by an asian woman. They couldn't even be bothered to call security.

In this case an airline employee told the flight crew who called the police. When I saw unaccompanied baggage left behind for more than 10 minutes, they yawned.

Those people should be fired ASAP. I'm not out to defend incompetance. I would except the same treatment when suspicious activity is flagged, regardless of what the reason was. Unaccompanied baggage is one of the biggest no-nos.

Its funny -> After Sep 11 2001 I used to always get "randomly" (the random distribution they used had a 100% probability) checked by TSA at the boarding gate. Nowdays (since the transatlantic scare), I do still get selected for "random" search (they started doing random search at the boarding gate at smaller airports). But now, I use my airline badge to get away with it.

The system seems to be vulnerable to abuse by people with malicious intent. False complaints like the ones cited in the comments including the case in discussion could be used to divert attention! I hope the authorities do consider such scenarios and have a solution for it.

As far as detained person in the above case I wonder what would have happened if he had insisted on his right to speak in his language of choice. The system is sure getting fragile.

As a matter of fact, the police might even go to the person making the report and warn them about making spurious claims.

Which is why if the claim is false, said person should board the next flight available while trained personnel show where the person went wrong. A simple deterrant of missing the flight (which will prevent frivolous complaints) if they're wrong will go a long way, too. Again, if someone, knowing that they'll miss their flight but are still willing to go ahead and register their complaint, wishes to do so good for them. They're willing to take some responsibility for their words/actions.

Those people should be fired ASAP.

IMO that would be half of JFK & LGA airport staff. I don't know what's worse. That the ignorant baboons who are running the airport include the lady who's checking my baggage being worried more about breaking her "inappropriate for the job" longass nails or the 3 TSA guys standing around and flirting with the female TSA neither paying attention to their jobs or the lady at the counter who barks at you to get in line if you attempt to go up and tell her about unattended luggage. Except for the K9 unit I find most of the airport employees completely incompetent. And this incompetence seems heightened if it's a flight going to India.

Well, I was transitting through London Heathrow and the airport staff (cleaner and her manager, I guess) were talking in a 'brown' language (i can't figure out if it's punjabi/hindi/urdu).. I don't think you'll run into these kinds of problems in European airports.. It is better to stick to English in American airports..

I am going to speak in tamil next time i am in the airport. I would like to know what happens to me.

Don't even get me started on the incompetance of TSA. As a quality assurance dude, it astounds me how poorly people train their own personnel for tasks they are given. This is across the board and shows poor leadership, IMHO.

Working in a military envirnoment, the one thing the military, overall as an instutution, does well is a good flow down of training. You have procedures for every and anything. When people lack the appropriate training or demeanor, it is leadership's fault for not providing enough trainers (an analogy from the military would be a strong Non-Commisioned Officer's corp) to make sure you personnel that do the heavy lifting, grunt work, have the right tools to do the job.

TSA is a joke. Give someone a shiny badge and tell them,"YOU"RE KING OF THIS HILL, NO ONE SHALL CHALLENGE YOUR AUTHORITY HERE, YOU HAVE THE SHINY GUBMENT BADGE, LOLZ!!!"

If being pulled over and brown feels bad, think about Marines as a part of an honor guard (for someone killed in action) being pulled over, seperately frisked, being held back from their flight, etc. by TSA. Brown, white, black, whatever. I think everyone agrees the TSA hasn't done much of a good job.

I won't defend incompetance because there is nothing to defend. I'm just sayin in this case, malicious intent from authorties or gross incompetance doesn't seem to be the case. Misunderstanding, sure. Lack of good information. Maybe. Does that mean abuse does not occur? No. It does, but more often than not its some old grandma, some dude with his family who got scurred by them foreign looking folks, or some person out looking to be a hero or cool that gives shitty intel. It is biased.

Regarding aiport screeing, a 100% manual/visual inspection (xray) is at best 80% effective. Adding a high sampling rate after the 100% inspection (one in four) would help validate how poorly the 100% screening is, but won't add much value. Two 100% inspections are also not 100% effective. That is why I agreed with one of Manish's earlier posts that more technology (automated systems) is the only reliable way of reducing error and removing human incompetance out of the equation.

Except for the K9 unit I find most of the airport employees completely incompetent.

Sad to say, but I'd take a well trained K9 dog for sniffin out trouble over any current system in place ANY DAY. Man's best friend can be trained well and they are damn consistent at doing it, too.

This is infuriating, naturally, but also extremely funny and ironic given the conversation I had a few hours ago with a white American who's visiting India for the first time. He told me that Tamil is very beautiful, and sounds to him a lot like a Romance language.

To both I say, wtf?

I am going to speak in tamil next time i am in the airport. I would like to know what happens to me.

sidg - i wouldnt go out and prodding people - it isnt the secrity personnel but the average dude in the corner who's going to get his/her hackles up. dont get me wrong. my dad or mum calls me on the phone at an airport, i would be so embarassed talking to them in english (it'd feel like i've sold them out).

one can be proud - but doesnt mean that you need to stand in the aisles mumbling, gesticulating and mouthing obscenities in tamil - not that you implied that... just making sure :-)

As long as they're banning non-English languages at airports, can they go ahead and do that on the train too? I'm getting really annoyed with the daily banter in everything from Hindi to Tamil on the train every morning, especially when it can be heard on the opposite end of the train car.

@ hairy_d. Agreed. All this time I have always been a strong proponent of speaking in English whenever a non-Tamil speaker is present near me. But that guy going to the extent of promising to speak only in english whenever in the airport is kind of insulting.

I sometimes speak to my parents in tamil from airports, but usually lower my voice (couple that with crappy phone cards to India, and its a recipe for disaster).....because it's often uncomfortable not speaking in english at a public place.

sucks, doesn't it?

GujuDude - I completely agree with your comments in #14. In this day and age, security officials have to respond to each and every complaint that they receive. There should however be some checks and balances to keep out frivolous complaints.

I'm always singled out for the "random" baggage check just before boarding the flight. I usually don't have any problems with this..other than the fact that they label it "random"!!

As long as they're banning non-English languages at airports, can they go ahead and do that on the train too? I'm getting really annoyed with the daily banter in everything from Hindi to Tamil on the train every morning, especially when it can be heard on the opposite end of the train car.

As long as they're banning non-English languages at airports, can they go ahead and do that on the train too? I'm getting really annoyed with the daily banter in everything from Hindi to Tamil on the train every morning, especially when it can be heard on the opposite end of the train car.

Every time you hear somebody talking loudly in a brown language, go up and offer to sell them Amway. They'll quiet down when they see you in the car alright ....

He told me that Tamil is very beautiful, and sounds to him a lot like a Romance language.

I strongly disagree. I am Tamil and in the words of Russell Peters, I think Tamil speakers sound like auctioneers and pinball machines.

my dad works for the port of seattle @ seatac (focused on their $1B renovation project). i'll see if i can get any more details from him....

I'm always singled out for the "random" baggage check just before boarding the flight. I usually don't have any problems with this..other than the fact that they label it "random"!!

I usually don't get pulled over and I travel for work. A lot. Funny thing is my boss, who has the most anglo name ever, has his name on the 'watch list' so he gets flak.

I do make sure the shoes I wear when working onsite are cleaned and packed away. If they ever swab those things, they may flag everything from gun powder, plastic explosive, to TNT residue. It would make for an interesting scenario.

TSA: Sir, you have residue from, uh, every explosive known to man.
Me: Yea, I know. I work ammo.
TSA: [Silence]
Me: Here are my travel orders and my gubment ID
TSA: [Silence]
Me: Great. Ok, just be gentle.
TSA: Sir, please put your hand where we can see them and lay flat on the ground. The FBI is on its way.

In all seriousness, some collegues did get flagged, but when presented with the right documentation, they were allowed to go through. Personally, I'm prepared and accept the risk that I may undergo a more extensive search. I just gotta keep my cool and a nice smile. Patience is a virtue of the wise, I guess.

i've flown about 10 times since 9/11. the main issue i've had is that people looked really closely at my baggage in small airports.

vivek said

He told me that Tamil is very beautiful, and sounds to him a lot like a Romance language.

I strongly disagree. I am Tamil and in the words of Russell Peters, I think Tamil speakers sound like auctioneers and pinball machines.

:-) my thoughts precisely. i like kohnondacob myself.

hey vivek - that sounded like a thinking man's pick-up line to me. he was totally Romancing you machang. ;-)

I wonder how many people have been told to stop speaking German or French? Oh wait, Germans and French are mostly white. Just absolutely ridiculous.

As long as they're banning non-English languages at airports, can they go ahead and do that on the train too? I'm getting really annoyed with the daily banter in everything from Hindi to Tamil on the train every morning, especially when it can be heard on the opposite end of the train car.

Actually Spanish grates more to me no the train than anything else. Along with Hebrew. And while we are requesting bans on the train I'd prefer that they just ban all loudass people period. I don't care what language you speak including English.

In all seriousness, some collegues did get flagged, but when presented with the right documentation, they were allowed to go through. Personally, I'm prepared and accept the risk that I may undergo a more extensive search. I just gotta keep my cool and a nice smile. Patience is a virtue of the wise, I guess.

Were they white? From the incidents I've read - Arab Secret Service Agent, Desi Officer, etc - having a government ID didn't help at all, given that they were travelling alone and didn't have a white person by their side to vouch for them.

BTW, I disagree about the TSA - I find them a substantial improvement over their predecessors, even if they are still far short of what they should be. I'd write more but I have a meeting in 40 minutes :)

I'd prefer that they just ban all loudass people period

amen to that...
ban not only on the train..but on a plane...automobiles.. :)
and a very special request to all manicurists to please keep their jabbering to a minimum with their fellow co-workers while with a client..maybe it's only the place i go to..where they chatter it up in LOUD vietnamese

I prefer to go against the predefined "rule" of not speaking in anything but English when in a public place. My mom will yell at me about this often and then I remind her that the Hispanics are doing this so why can't we? It's too hard for me to not speak in Bengali when on the phone with my parents especially if I get angry about something. So due to this incident of speaking monolingual I await the day when my flight will be delayed due to arguing with my parents in Bengali. Perhaps I will even sport a t-shirt in Arabic writing (would put a link but too lazy to)

Every time you hear somebody talking loudly in a brown language, go up and offer to sell them Amway. They'll quiet down when they see you in the car alright ....

I'm not that ballsy =)

request to all manicurists to please keep their jabbering to a minimum

haha .. this can ruin an entire appointment! I rarely treat myself to a pedicure, but when I do, I usualy regret not bringing headphones.

JOAT ~ Nice article in ABCD Lady by the way!

Were they white? From the incidents I've read - Arab Secret Service Agent, Desi Officer, etc - having a government ID didn't help at all, given that they were travelling alone and didn't have a white person by their side to vouch for them.

White and latino. For the instances you mention is the reason why I'm prepared and accept the risk that I may undergo more stringet evaluations. The more calm and collected I present myself, the more ease it puts folks screeing at (and faster I get out). It may not help, but I'll get on the next flight. Since it's a govt. fare, I have no issues on getting on flights I need and I'm not paying for it. Makes a big difference in how peeved off I get. After all, I am guju.

BTW, I disagree about the TSA - I find them a substantial improvement over their predecessors, even if they are still far short of what they should be. I'd write more but I have a meeting in 40 minutes :)

It's not that improvements haven't come around (better X-Ray equipment, standardized procedures, new magnetometers, etc), its the fact that the exectations are higher and they don't meet the mark. With shiny badges, uniforms, and federal government dollar, I expect more - better training, more compentant personnel from being pleasant, not jumpy, no a 'king of the hill' complex, etc.

Two months ago, I was flying back from Chicago and the TSA lady freaked out as I was placing my laptop and carryon the x-ray belt, but was first in line to walk through the mangetometer. "SIR, WHERE IS YOUR BOARDING CARD????". Jesus lady, if you give me a chance to free my hands, I can present one before walking through since its in my pocket.

I now make sure I wear a shirt/polo with a pocket so they can see it sticking out.

My mom will yell at me about this often and then I remind her that the Hispanics are doing this so why can't we?

Because Latinos have already established that they aren't the "real terrorists." Desis, however, have yet to parade themselves in the streets with similar signs. Hence the security threat for desi languages.

does this 'no foreign language' statute apply to us kannada peeps? i mean, no one really knows who we are or what we speak anyway. can i just drop a 'ayyooo raama, sumne iri" on some airlines executives??

and on a random note, i'm 25 today so i feel like i should be allowed to speak freely at an airport in my more-than-adorable mother tongue.

anyone else out there a mysore magu/magalu born in the u-s-of-a??

and a very special request to all manicurists to please keep their jabbering to a minimum with their fellow co-workers while with a client

OMG I thought I was the only one. Hahahahaha. I go to these Russian ladies in midtown. And they talk the entire time and continuously. Here you are paying a shit load of money trying to find a half hour of relaxation during a mani-pedi and the verbal diarrhea is insane.

JOAT ~ Nice article in ABCD Lady by the way!

Thanx but dude I'm a little embarrassed especially by the animal print picture used.

and on a random note, i'm 25 today

Well Happy Birthday. How does it feel to be a quarter of a century old?

anyone else out there a mysore magu/magalu born in the u-s-of-a??

word dawg.

anyone else out there a mysore magu/magalu born in the u-s-of-a??

surveys are so much more scientific than shout outz :)

while we're on the subject of profiling.

on my way back from the bank - this person spotted me - i understood what he said in english - calls to brother, muhammad etc, maybe even something about the holy time etc - he was in need and he was very assertive in asking me for help - not in an aggressive way - but in the knowing way that i would help - told me about his psych problem - i saw a lot of anguish in his eyes - i was compelled to answer because i felt i'd break his faith in the muslim brotherhood or whatever secret handshake there is out there. what does it mean? i think it is a net positive - not necessarily in my favor - but in the faith that guy had. I kept it up and i responded in the way he saw me. do people respond to their expectations?

ok. so there it is. hmmm... let's ruminate.

surveys are so much more scientific than shout outz

hairy, are you talking about giving money to a homeless dude? i'm confused.

when homeless people look in need and i give 'em some change and they say "god bless you" i'll tell i don't believe in god. not to disrespect them, but to show them that the godless have hearts too. if someone assumed i was muslim, and i gave them money, i'd tell i'm not muslim, so that they know that non-muslims are good people who are moved to compassion, even across religious or ethnic chasms.

surveys are so much more scientific than shout outz :)

wuzzup dawg! is much cooler than conf intervals and z-tests and $hit.

when homeless people look in need and i give 'em some change and they say "god bless you" i'll tell i don't believe in god. not to disrespect them, but to show them that the godless have hearts too. if someone assumed i was muslim, and i gave them money, i'd tell i'm not muslim, so that they know that non-muslims are good people who are moved to compassion, even across religious or ethnic chasms.

Majority of the brown people I know have been on the receiving end of 'racial profiling'. Surprisingly enough, most of them have had no problems with racial profiling as long as it is not misused.

I guess it has something to do with the fact that most of them are foreign-borns.

it was about his faith which i wanted to see bolstered

well, yes, perhaps you did bolster his faith, his faith in the fellowship of muslims. i think it would have been OK to bolster, or create, a faith in the fellows of humans.

and then who is to say our faith is different - words have no meaning.

perhaps he would have thought that too if you had disabused him of the notion that your generosity was precipitated by faith in islam, as opposed to faith in some broader religious sensibility.

hairy, are you talking about giving money to a homeless dude? i'm confused.

enough about this. i'm subverting the thread.

my other point is that (and i speak as a person who studied math, stats at the doctorate level) a scientist can only go so far with facts and data. shoutoutz may work better than surveys because they come from the heart. but what do i know. :-) . enough subversion. siddharth is probably staring holes in the screen right now.

without faith there is no hope for redemption.

Just to nitpik ;-) some of us aren't in need of redemption.

While we're on the track of loud people, I have one major beef with my fellow airline passengers.

I have a problem with people passing gas, particularly in small CRJ/ERJ jets with leather seats at 30K feet in the air. Pass it loud, its ok, but pleaaassseee don't rip SBDs. Think folks, you don't have foam seats to absorb any bowel yawns. Leather seats will not buffer the sensory onslaught. Recycled air make's it difficult to whisk airborne fecal matter away.

Beware of the geriatric atomic grannies. In between complaints of their daughter in laws, how lovely their grandkids are, and how confusing everything seems, the SBDs powered by healthy doeses of ensure will test the faith of even staunchest of believers, even athiests.

Incidents like this just makes me want to be more brazen about my brownness; I wear a headscarf and the next time I'm in an airport, I'll probably just say "Salam" more loudly to my ammi when I call her from my cell. I mean, seriously, you can't speak another language in an airport?

However, I must say that I have been very fortunate; I have traveled a lot since (and before) 9/11 (both domestically and internationally), and I have never had a problem--despite the fact that I make no bones about the fact that I am Muslim (and pretty obviously look it).

Then again, maybe it's just a matter of time until I'm shipped off to Gitmo for saying Namaz in an airplane seat...

Just to nitpik ;-) some of us aren't in need of redemption.

"So yeah, even 5 years after 9/11, I still only speak on my cell phone in English at airports, I always call or text somebody to tell them where I am in my journey, and I make extra sure to grin broadly and shuffle my feet while boarding."

Aren't you giving in by modifying your behavior to fit people's stereotypes? Why not continue to challenge the system until your rights are asserted? I.e., the victim at Seatac could've called a commuinty organization to do an information/cultural training for the employees. I take about 4 flights per month, and regularly talk in Punjabi on my cellphone, with my turban on. Luckily, I have yet to be searched or stopped in anyway, but I know that it can happen because of the increased discrimination post 9-11 adn the frequency with which I fly. At least you're assured basic physical safety here. When I used to travel to Punjab in the 1990s, I was stopped several times leaving the airport and searched because of my identity as a Sikh, with guns pointing at me!

GujuDude - try SBD's and a Tuna sandwich on a completely full plane - probably the worst flight I've been on.

Aren't you giving in by modifying your behavior to fit people's stereotypes? Why not continue to challenge the system until your rights are asserted? I.e., the victim at Seatac could've called a commuinty organization to do an information/cultural training for the employees. I take about 4 flights per month, and regularly talk in Punjabi on my cellphone, with my turban on. Luckily, I have yet to be searched or stopped in anyway, but I know that it can happen because of the increased discrimination post 9-11 adn the frequency with which I fly.

Precisely, Singh! I refuse to give into this kind of pressure, though some would argue that you and I are just inviting trouble. Still, I do find that a warm smile can often go a long way in making others feel foolish when they're staring at you suspiciously.

Thought test:

I am this ignoramus white American dude/dudess in an airport waiting to board a flight. In a post-911 world, I know that evil people (with brown skin, beards and funny accents) are trying to do bad things using planes (This impression comes straight from President, tv, newspapers, blogs everywhere). I see a brown person doing one or more of the following

a) Talking in a accent/language on the phone
b) Confabulating with another similar person
c) Tensed/Anxious/Nervous
d) Random suspicious thing

And moreover assume that I had seen this alarming report on CNN/FOX/MSNBC showing such people doing or thinking of doing or threatening of doing bad things to Americans. I am not sophisticated enough to know the difference between Indians and Middle Eastners and between Hindus and Muslims and between Arabic and Tamil.

I can decide to do two things, report it to the police and trust them to handle situation or do nothing. If I report this to cops, the worst case is that he is innocent and cops will send him on next flight and the best case is stopping a terrorist attack. If I don't report this to cops, the worst case is that a terrorist incident will happen and the best is that nothing happens.

So if you compare the worst in each scenario, I would choose to report the said suspicous person to the cops.

End of experiment.
It is okay to be reported and questioned for sometime before letting go. The problem comes is when this vigilante actions goes to extreme. Recently, one vigilante passenger attacked and pinned a jewish architect on a plane even after the captain told the passenger that the jewish guy is cleared.

But there is nothing wrong in the said Seattle scenario. It is not the best case scenario but in post911 wishing better would be wishful thinking. It is not always easy to figure out who is suspicious and who is not by just looking even for trained cop. There are people going through much worse than just getting delayed.

This is what I do when I go through screening and while I am on the plane:
1) Look non-chalant
2) Look and smile at other passengers and screeners if they look at you
3) Make small conversation if possible
4) Order a drink in the plane (excuse to drink :))
5) Don't go to bathroom before ordering a drink
6) Answer clearly and keep all docs with you

As long it is just a polite questioning and delayed flight, we shouldn't complain. Anything worse is breakdown in the system and should be protested.

pardon me. i stretch words sometimes. i meant redemption in the sense that there is a better life, a better place, a better person within grasping distance.

OK you are off the hook. :-) You bring god into betterment it can get all twisted.

I refuse to give into this kind of pressure, though some would argue that you and I are just inviting trouble. Still, I do find that a warm smile can often go a long way in making others feel foolish when they're staring at you suspiciously.

Amen to that. I don't think you are inviting trouble Ismat. I support your choice and those that make it everyday. You are being you. And if someone has a problem with who you are then you'll cross that bridge when you get there.

My question is this: what does it take to become a suspicious person at an airport? Is it just speaking a foreign language while looking brown? Did this guy do something else that got some random passerby's attention? I mean, calling a cop or security or a TSA person is kind of a big deal. I wouldn't do it lightly, myself. I'm just wondering if we've gotten to the point that enough jittery / freaked out / stupid / do-gooder type people are now roving the airports looking for signs of terrorists that this is going to become a real problem.

I suspect it will.

It would be nice if the finger-pointer had to undergo at least some consequences for stopping everything and going, "j'accuse!" I mean, if he or she had to wait around until the detainee was allowed to board his or her flight, that might help. I would consciously miss my flight if I felt I was witnessing a potential terrorist threat shaping up. I might think twice about reporting some random guy for speaking a language I don't understand if I knew I wasn't going to make my connection in Chicago, though.

I refuse to give into this kind of pressure, though some would argue that you and I are just inviting trouble.

As long as you're not doing it purposefully...just to 'rub it in', I don't see any reason for changing the way you walk, talk, or dress.

As long as you're not doing it purposefully...just to 'rub it in', I don't see any reason for changing the way you walk, talk, or dress.

Not sure what that means, but I wouldn't do something I wouldn't normally do. The point is, why should I feel afraid to behave in a way (ie speak in Urdu, cover my head) that is typical and usual for me, as long as I am not breaking any laws?

why should I feel afraid to behave in a way

of course you shouldn't. but, there is a distinction between how the world should be, and how it is, and until one can make the world how it should be, one must keep in mind how it is. no one here would think anyone should have to behave anyway, though i suspect some might offer that the constraints of the world as they are now imply particular courses of action if one is willing to concede on principles in the interests of short term considerations (e.g., prioritize having to get to the business meeting and sacrifice pride & self-respect).

sacrifice pride & self-respect

money isnt that important to me....d@mn. I would never sacrifice those things for all the money in the world...

Try SBD's and a Tuna sandwich on a completely full plane - probably the worst flight I've been on.

Try the three year-old in the row ahead sticking his head between the seats and spraying the couple sitting next to you with projectile vomit, in the first hour of a jam-packed Houston to London flight...

Speaking of profiling... I'm not especially dark, but I get a fair amount of airport aggro, presumably for my long beard. OH NOES!!!AMERICAN TALIBAN!!1!!11! There have been several incidents... when cancelled flights left me stuck with a one-way ticket... or when I braincramped and stuck a battery-powered talking doll in my carry-on bag... where I ended up getting groped like a prom queen at a biker rally. I was especially popular during my last trip to Europe. By the time I got back home I was convinced that I looked like a terrorist... not just any terrorist but a specific, notorious bad guy. I still wonder at times what became of my evil twin... if he's still roaming the wilds of Afghanistan, Chechnya or wherever...

Aren't you giving in by modifying your behavior to fit people's stereotypes? Why not continue to challenge the system until your rights are asserted? I.e., the victim at Seatac could've called a commuinty organization to do an information/cultural training for the employees. I take about 4 flights per month, and regularly talk in Punjabi on my cellphone, with my turban on. Luckily, I have yet to be searched or stopped in anyway, but I know that it can happen because of the increased discrimination post 9-11 adn the frequency with which I fly. At least you're assured basic physical safety here. When I used to travel to Punjab in the 1990s, I was stopped several times leaving the airport and searched because of my identity as a Sikh, with guns pointing at me!

Far safer than Punjab was, but still unsafe enough that I don't want to make a point out of being my usual brash and surly self. I don't feel that the point I make by speaking into my cell in Punjabi is worth the risk of 4 hours of detention.

On the other hand, I only restrict my behavior in that way in certain places. I also do my share in general to try to make social change, in part by blogging such incidents and keeping awareness of them up. I have a post that never got written on how I spent the first few months after 9/11 lobbying and advocating ...

In short, I'm not about to compromise on the rehat, but I do act extra friendly, when I fly. And yes, I do restrict my behavior in small but meaningful ways because of the risks.

Ismat:

Not sure what that means, but I wouldn't do something I wouldn't normally do.

Some people wrote comments that next time they'll make it a point to talk loudly in their native lang..so as to attract attention. Personally I would never do such a thing. This does not mean that I won't talk in Hindi...or that I would whisper while talking on the phone. I plan to be 'my own self' at the airport...nothing artificial.

of course you shouldn't. but, there is a distinction between how the world should be, and how it is, and until one can make the world how it should be, one must keep in mind how it is. no one here would think anyone should have to behave anyway, though i suspect some might offer that the constraints of the world as they are now imply particular courses of action if one is willing to concede on principles in the interests of short term considerations (e.g., prioritize having to get to the business meeting and sacrifice pride & self-respect).

I hear you, Razib, but the point is that if I modify my behavior (behavor that is perfectly legal, btw, and something I'm entitled to), then I'm only perpetuating the problem. I guess I have to put my money where my mouth is, but so far, I haven't compromised myself because I'm afraid someone will think I'm a terrorist. I think those who do are actually doing us brownz a collective disservice. Like I said, I've been fortunate in that I haven't faced any major obstacles thus far when I'm traveling (and I don't consider having to take my shoes off or get an extra security screening an obstacle), but if and when I do, I'd like to think I'll stand for my rights.

brown_fob:

Some people wrote comments that next time they'll make it a point to talk loudly in their native lang..so as to attract attention. Personally I would never do such a thing.

I suppose you were referring to my comment:

Incidents like this just makes me want to be more brazen about my brownness; I wear a headscarf and the next time I'm in an airport, I'll probably just say "Salam" more loudly to my ammi when I call her from my cell. I mean, seriously, you can't speak another language in an airport?

I was just trying to be sarcastic; I didn't literally mean I'd do what I could to attract attention. Heh. That's just me being obnoxious.

Still, I do find that a warm smile can often go a long way in making others feel foolish when they're staring at you suspiciously.

Yet, why should you have to do that? My normal pre-9/11 behavior was if somebody stared at me suspiciously, I would stare back. Right now, if a white person is surly, he's just having a bad day, but if a brown person doesn't smile and glares at you, that is a suspicious sign (I've seen this discussed). You could uphold your rights to act as you normally would, or you can go out of your way to assuage their paranoia by smiling back at their rudeness. You're chosing the later, and that's one of the small ways I also modify my behavior. Honestly, to me, smiling when I'm pissed off is a lot harder than speaking in English for the brief conversations I have when I'm flying ...

I strongly disagree. I am Tamil and in the words of Russell Peters, I think Tamil speakers sound like auctioneers and pinball machines.

An off-duty airline employee heard the conversation and informed the flight crew

I would argue that Tamil is a language that hasn't been heard in about 50 years. The only form of Tamil that is spoken today is a bizarre Tamlish that varies depending upon the location in which it is spoken. I can barely understand a conversation in pure Tamil (for examples, see old Sivaji Ganeshan movies where he plays a king of old or a character from Hindu mythology).

I have lived in Seattle for the past couple of years and flown out of Sea-Tac many times, nothing like this ever happened. I chatted on the cell to pass time waiting for the flight, speaking Hinglish (Hindi+English). Really, weird to see something like this happen in Seattle.

No spoken language can be dubbed as "real"-- only colloquial forms of a proto-language are spoken. more "proto" or "pure" forms of language are usually unspoken as they contain the original grammar that has gone unspoken since the inception of a language. the old movies may have a more classic dialect, but it would still be a dialect. that's my little linguistics tip!!

hi sriram!!

Growing up, my neighbours were Tamil, and I'm embarrased that I didn't learn any words. I haven't heard Tamil for a long time, so I did a search on YouTube and came across this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tbgif4keOtM . It sounds awfully interesting, could someone please translate?

Growing up, my neighbours were Tamil

Translation of that song-
Man: Why the 1 inch /2 inch/ 3 gap ? ("why don't you let me get closer" is my interpretation)
Woman: Will the (measuring) tape show 4 inch/5 inch/ 6 inch ?

I'm not quite sure what the second line means. The rest is all blah blah. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to look for my mind and take it out of the gutter.

The man promised he would only speak English in airports of his own accord. He was over-compensating, which is not unusual for people under suspicion.

"Man: Why the 1 inch /2 inch/ 3 gap ? ("why don't you let me get closer" is my interpretation)
Woman: Will the (measuring) tape show 4 inch/5 inch/ 6 inch ?

I'm not quite sure what the second line means"...........

Ask any woman here, we'll tell you EXACTLY what it means...... hee hee hee!

didn't someone tell this dude that Tamil is language of the LTTE - the LTTE are acknowledged worldwide to be terrorists - so................................

Ask any woman here, we'll tell you EXACTLY what it means...... hee hee hee!

didn't someone tell this dude that Tamil is language of the LTTE - the LTTE are acknowledged worldwide to be terrorists - so................................

Your point being?. Acknowledged worldwide? It is also acknowledged that the Sri Lankan government does bad things to minorities.

The Telugus think that Tamil is aravam, a collection of stones rattling inside a bottle.

Finally! A use for all that duct tape!

I can use it to tape my mouth shut at airports.

Does aravam have any negative connotation?

Sadly, Tamil have no way of saying something like that about Telugu. Telugu (at least when spoken in style of the movie Sankarabharanam) is India's sweetest language.

Sadly, Tamil have no way of saying something like that about Telugu.

Are you kidding. Of course there is. Tamilians call telugu as goluti. No offence.

Thanks Kurma. That would be in Delhi.

I think it's safe to assume that the in-gutter mind is right. I've heard that Tamil movies have a lot of slapstick in them.

Although I'm no fan of English infiltrating all our Indian languages (Tamlish, Hinglish, etc), I do think this concept of 'pure' language that so many in India have, has fossilized and to some extent killed our languages, as well as put them in ever weaker positions as far as resisting the onslaught of English. I don't know much about Tamil but from what I've read, a really fossilised version is used as the literary tongue, which stopped evolving centuries ago, meanwhile the various spoken versions (which differ by caste as well as region) are largely unwritten and generally looked down upon. Telugu is another example, where it has to be extremely Sanskritised in order to be seen as pure. Hindi is another blatant example... a rather limited set of people (mostly Brahmins) from Uttar Pradesh had extremely disproportionate power to mold Hindi in ways that suited their ideology back in the 1800s. They took Urdu, removed all the Persian/Aracbic vocabulary, artificially introduced Sanskrit terms in their place, and voila! Hindi! Meanwhile the spoken form (at least in urban areas) continues to have many Perso-Arabic words, which to me is a far more natural reflection of the history of the language as well as the region. Doordarshan 'shuddh' Hindi is a fake, pompous, ridiculous creation that never even existed in times past. Whereas Hindi as a language actually has very deep roots, much variety, and enormous native vocabulary (including various regional dialects as well as Persian/Arabic borrowings). I wish people had a more educated and mature view of language in general.

amitabh can you back your assertion up. my understanding of hindi is limited but there seem to be some obvious gaps here.

meanwhile the various spoken versions (which differ by caste as well as region) are largely unwritten and generally looked down upon.

Tamil but from what I've read, a really fossilised version is used as the literary tongue, which stopped evolving centuries ago, meanwhile the various spoken versions (which differ by caste as well as region) are largely unwritten and generally looked down upon.

Hindi is another blatant example... a rather limited set of people (mostly Brahmins) from Uttar Pradesh had extremely disproportionate power to mold Hindi in ways that suited their ideology back in the 1800s. They took Urdu, removed all the Persian/Aracbic vocabulary, artificially introduced Sanskrit terms in their place, and voila! Hindi!... Doordarshan 'shuddh' Hindi is a fake, pompous, ridiculous creation that never even existed in times past. Whereas Hindi as a language actually has very deep roots,

I think that the kind of mob-mentality driven behavior, demonstrated in these recent airport events, marks an alarming trend in contemporary society. When other passengers use their intuition to "identify" behaviour that is "suspicious," they participate in furthering the practice of racial and ethnic profiling. We are supposed to be inclusive of all colors and all faiths, but the general public is stubbornly failing to remember that people who committ terrorist acts are not representative of entire continents, countries or faiths; they are only representative of very specific groups. In addition the average non-brown person usually cannot tell the difference between a person of Indian descent, Arabic descent, Persian descent or even Latino origins (and apparently Hasidic Jews are now perceived as a threat). They see a brown person, hear an unfamiliar language and allow their paranoia to carry them away. Even worse, the TSA wastes time investigating regular travellers. If our security system is so faulty that we rely on random passengers to indentify threats, then we have some serious revamping to do. The thing that is supposed to be beautiful about contemporary America is that its residents and citizens can celebrate their roots. I can't imagine that anyone would be thrown off a plane for mixing Gaelic in with English. If the general population took a little bit of time to learn about South Asia, they may not be so judgmental.

One more thing, I don't remember where I read this, but I saw a recent article (maybe it was here on SM) that noted that most people's prejudices arise out of fear of the unknown and that of the people questioned, those that had a friend who practiced Islam did not categorically apply the terrorist label to every person who practices Islam. In contrast, those that had no Islamic friends, applied the terrorist label to everyone. My point is this, if these extremely fearful people let a little diversity into their lives, then maybe they would not be so alarmed at hearing one of the Indian languages or Arabic or the totally benign act of praying. (and maybe some of those situations would not repeat themselves)

I think that this is a situation where ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant. It is hell for everyone else.

One more thing, I don't mean to minimize the pain that has been caused by the terrorist attacks and I understand that people are afraid. I certainly would not want to be in a position where I could have averted a terrorist attack and failed to do so. But I think that too much reliance on the observation of regular passangers can lead to a disproportionate amount of investigations of innocent people. And I think that it also creates a false sense of security. Detaining innocent people who pose no threat is not progress, it is a diversion of resources. If the risk of terrorist attacks is extremely high, then we need a security system that is much better than an overhead announcement asking that all suspicious behaviour be reported to TSA. I don't know what that would be, I just know that a divisive world rife with discrimination does not feel like progress at all.

I agree Amitabh, language planning really sucks, though I don’t agree with what you say is the origin of Hindi. Urdu has more Persian/Arabic as well as some Southern (Telugu, Tamil) influence whereas Hindi has more Sanskrit influence. The language spoken by any person claiming to speak Hindi or Urdu can be placed on a continuum between the two extremes and is largely based on geographical and socioeconomic factors. Linguists refer to the language as Hindi/Urdu because the two share the same grammar and are mutually intelligible. Sadly, some people, on both sides, have successfully popularized the historically false view that Urdu was used solely by Muslims and Hindi was used solely by Hindus.

Doordarshan and PTV, and their respective language polices, are spreading unnatural and engineered versions of their languages to obliterate past commonalities and to foster new ‘pure’ identities. The language used in Bombay films (I hate the term Bollywood) and on private channels is closer to what majority of Hindi/Urdu speakers in both India and Pakistan speak. For this reason, I don’t have a problem with English infiltration in Indian languages. I’d rather be like the French French who let language change be rather the Quebec French who do odd language gymnastics to keep their French in the sixteenth century.

I have an idea for a true Sepia Mutiny. We buy tickets on the same flight. After a small conference at the airport, we decide on two-three very normal looking people (preferably suits) and separately report something about them that can be construed as suspicious. We then sit and let hilarity ensue. How about it brownies?

Meanwhile 200 million guns are afloat in the land.

Literally, aravam means a collection of stones rattling inside a bottle. Figuratively, aravam means a rough-sounding language.

Are you sure about this, PGW? I'd take your (or anyone's on SM) word straight usually but in this case I'm finding it hard to believe because I've heard the same description (stones in bottle/jar) from various people in India. I've met Bengalis who said exactly the same thing about Malayalam, UP people who said it about Tamil, Mallus about Telugu etc. Someone very close to me is a Telugu and rural members of her family say aravam without any negativity. They simply don't know any other word for Tamil. Their city cousins make fun of them for being "ignorant" and using the word aravam.

Meanwhile 200 million guns are afloat in the land.

... and not enough dildos.

Buchoo, Hawa nikal gayi

Jai, Jai TSA wallah, Jai, Jai.

Amitabh,

I agree that the concept of "pure" language is ridiculous, but it seems to me that apart from a few Hindi-mein-Bindi-Kyun types the Hindi establishment has largely celebrated the non-pure Hindustani language that most Hindi writers have written in (post-independence). I'm thinking of folks from Manto to Bachchan to Nirmal Verma (whose Hindi novels, set in Europe, have tons of English, too) to Bhisham Sahani to Qurratulain Hyder. I don't know about the Pakistani literary scene (except Manto, ofcourse) and the extent of Sanskrit influence they have attempted to purge/retain, but my sense is that the Hindi literary scene in India has definitely celebrated the Persian/Arabic influence on Hindi (to the extent of unfairly putting down Sanskrit, or over-politicizing the issue sometimes).

Ofcourse, you're right that politics of Hindi/Urdu is deeply related to caste-class-religious politics of the Indian subcontinent at the turn of the 19th century (the monograph "Hindi Nationalism" by my old teacher Alok Rai talks about this in some detail). That said, I find nothing wrong in DD news Hindi being more formal (Sanskritized) than the language spoken on the street - I suspect this is the case with most news reporting worldwide. Sanskritized Hindi also makes it more accessible to non-North Indian language-speaking people. Also, with regard to Anglicization of Indian languages (i.e. the kind of Hindi on private news channels in des) while hybridity is to be celebrated there is something to be said about trying to preserve the aesthetic traditions of a language. Perhaps from this creative tension between the instinct to preserve (e.g. come up with new words/expressions for new concepts) and the instinct to incorporate words from English directly, our languages will be enriched. I guess I'm trying to say that there are good reasons for supporting DD-Hindi in the current context (which have nothing to do with the 19th century UP Brahmin agenda).

Ok, enough Hindi/urdu talk. Now back to Tamil and airports.

Amitabh,

I think you may be confusing Hindi with Hindustani.

Hindi is the original version of the language, derived from Sanskrit. For example, Amitabh Bachchan used it when anchoring KBC, and it's also used by anchors on the Star News channel.

Hindustani is the modified version of Hindi which developed as a result of the Muslim cultural influx in north Indian society, and is what is "normally" spoken by everyday folk; it's full of Arabic, Persian and Turkic words, although not to the extent of Urdu.

Urdu as you probably know literally means "military camp" and developed initially as a result of contact between Muslim soldiers and the rest of the non-Muslim Indian population. Obviously it has considerably more Arabic and Persian-derived words than Hindustani does.

This guy can't really complain if Arabs have been treated similarly. The LTTE speak Tamil and it is a banned terrorist organization in the USA, Canada and the EU.

I refuse to give into this kind of pressure, though some would argue that you and I are just inviting trouble. Still, I do find that a warm smile can often go a long way in making others feel foolish when they're staring at you suspiciously.

Lets say you have a marriage reception to attend or an important interview the next day. The hijab will attract unnecessary attention and is more lkely to have you detained for a couple of hours or even more than if you were not wearing one. I would then question your wisdom in wearing a hijab to the airport even though you are aware of the fact that it is more likely to make you miss that important date. Of course I will only question for wisdom and not your right to do so.

I know you should not be discriminated against for wearing hijab and I would defend your right to wear hijab, but I cant stand on the sidelines and cheer on the hijabis for wearing the hijab. I work in the Civil rights area part time (though getting very very tired of it) and more often than not, the hijabis want my affirmation of their exercise of an article of their faith. I see hijab as an exercise of an irrational belief, akin to how I see people who put tattoos on their foreheads. People with tattoos on their foreheads have certain constitutional rights and I will defend their constitutional rights to the best of my abilities. However I will question their wisdom in putting tattoos on their foreheads the same way I question the wisdom of the hijabi.

Hairy-d, Jai, SA, HindiMeinBindi:

Thanks for you comments. I'll try to summarise my views briefly, and restrict my comments to Hindi for now. Hindi has a fairly complex history, and has been tossed around by more political-religious wrangling than any other language I can think of right now...but its issues are being faced to varying degrees by most Indian languages. I don't have references for my assertions, these are conclusions based on various things I've read over the years, they may not all be correct. Hindi can be traced back originally to early spoken dialects of Sanskrit, of which Vedic Sanskrit is probably the closest written approximation. Whereas written Sanskrit went through its own phases (Vedic becoming Classical Sanskrit and then being fossilised), the various 'spoken Sanskrits' of northern India gradually morphed into the prakrits of which Buddhist Pali is a famous example. That marks the evolution of Old Indo-Aryan into Middle Indo-Aryan. As these dialects continued to evolve and undergo morphologic/grammatical changes, gradually the modern Indo-Aryan tongues emerged, including prototypes of Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Bengali, and Hindi. Hindi at that stage was splintered into various regional forms, including precursors of Khadi Boli (Delhi area), Braj (Mathura), Awadhi (Lucknow), and others (some would include Marwari and Bhojpuri too). These were largely spoken and not written, except for some poetry. When the Muslims formed their various regimes, most of them based in Delhi, their various languages, most notably Persian (which itself was very mixed with Arabic) blended with the local variety of Hindi (which is called Khadi Boli), and Urdu/Hindustani was born. The Army camp, as Jai alluded to, was crucial in this development. So I don't claim that Hindi comes from Urdu...actually Urdu is merely one variant of Hindi...it's Hindi from the Delhi region, with large-scale Perso-Arabic borrowings, that eventually developed a large literature, and was given official state sanction and patronage. Meanwhile, other dialects of Hindi continued to flourish, and had their own (mostly Hindu, mostly poetic) literature. But during the Raj, after Islamic rule had been ended, a 'purification' movement set in, to get rid of foreign elements in Hindu/Urdu, Sanskritize the language as heavily as possible, and promote that as the original Hindi, which it never was. The larger backdrop to that was political warfare between Hindus-Muslims on many fronts. Muslims also reacted stupidly by deliberately adding even more and more Perso-Arabic words and phrases, again creating an artificial construct which had no basis in everyday spoken speech. I don't defend that type of artificial, harmful, ridiculous Urdu either. What I like is simple Hindustani, the everyday, colloquial spoken language, lingua franca on the streets of northern India. As someone mentioned, this is the language of tv serials, Hindi films, normal conversation, and is also used in Pakistan. I have so much more to add but this is all I have the time for right now. I welcome your comments.

I would then question your wisdom in wearing a hijab to the airport even though you are aware of the fact that it is more likely to make you miss that important date.

So by the same token you would ask that a Jew not wear a Yamaka or a Surd not wear a Pagdi or a Goth not wear black or a desi grandma not wear a Sari? Even thought all these people have done so their whole life? Because essentially you are asking Ismat to stop being something she is every single day of her life because she might stand out. What you think about her outward expression of faith is moot for all intents and purposes.

SA,
Count me in. It would be hilarious.

Surd not wear a Pagdi

JOAT - FYI, it's "Sardar"

SA - Great meetup idea =)

Amitabh -- good summary. One question -- where does Bhojpuri fit intio the history of Hindustani?

As you pointed out, state-sanctioned linguistic-cleansing isn't limited to India. PTV news uses a very difficult to undertand, super-persian form of Urdu. And the current PK national anthem has only one non-persian, non-arabic word (the original anthem, by Jagganath Azad, was a little more normal).

(That's not to say languages don't change naturally -- Like Indian Hindi/Hindustani, PK Urdu has many English words. And it is much more Punjabized than Indian Urdu.)

It may be fools errand, but preserving the purity of a language is a goal of the upper class of almost any culture. Here in the states, Ebonics is frowned upon as a lower form of English. Likewise, those who speak the Queen's English frown upon American English. Castillian Spanish is considered more pure than South American Spanish. And then of course, there's the French. They have a whole body (L'Academie Francaise) devoted to the preservation of French. God knows what those people think of the language that is spoken in Senegal. My point is, I think all of these cultures have drawn a balance between snobbery and acceptance of the fact that languages evolve. Desi languages and cultures are no different. Apologies for writing something that has absolutely nothing to do with the original post.

JOAT - FYI, it's "Sardar"

Dude my own Sardarji friends refer to themselves as surds. Is it a Delhi thing? Because I've heard it my whole life.

I guess it's an India thing - a lot of people here find it derogatory - probably since it's most often used in jokes. Makes me cringe =)

a lot of people here find it derogatory - probably since it's most often used in jokes. Makes me cringe =)

I had no idea. Thanx for correcting me. I always heard sardarji jokes with the full word "sardarji" so I've been ignorant that it's a derogatory term :-) Won't use it again.

Meanwhile 200 million guns are afloat in the land.

... and not enough dildos.

PK Urdu has many English words. And it is much more Punjabized than Indian Urdu

Interesting. What would be the examples of Punjabized Urdu?

Kurma:

Re: Post 104

This is what a Telugu acquaintance who lives in Madras said to me. He was not a recognized Telugu scholar, so the information is not authoritative.

However, a Google search with the keywords "aravam andal" yielded the following. Andal wrote a devotional poem called Tiruppavai in Tamil. Tiruppavai contains the word aravam. aravam means sound.

I agree with Amitabh's comments above that the whole "pure" language thing is very political. Similar to what Sriram mentioned about Shivaji Ganesan, whenever historical figures and characters from mythology appear onscreen, they talk in "chaste" forms of the Hindi or whatever language as we know it today. Which is odd because it seems to me logical to either have them speak in whatever language the story is being told in, or if for some reason, the original is needed, they can speak in the original of the text. e.g. Mahabharata - the characters could easily speak regular Hindi or Sanskrit. But they go into this language which is close enough to normal-speak for everyone to understand, yet "good" enough to let you know they are great heroes, not your average Raju.

Something similar in WWII movies from Hollywood - For some reason, the Japanese soldiers would speak among themselves in Japanese accented English! rather than normal English (language of the narrative) or Japanese (the truth). Same with the Germans.

Something really odd is that I've heard Kerala Christians switch to highly Sanskritized Malayalam during prayer as if God can't understand ordinary Malayalam. This is especially odd because the Bible is certainly not a Sanskrit text. It does serve the purpose of snapping everyone into attention, though.

Kush, kiski nikli, bhai? Aap kisi inflatable dildo ki baat to nahin kar rahe hain?

OK, PG Wodehouse. I guess we'll have to wait for recognized Telugu scholars to show up on SM :-). Maybe an ashtavadhani too :-). Or maybe not since all we want to know is whether aravam is commonly used negatively today regardless of what it really means. Just the fact that it means'sound' is rather inconclusive since that could be interpreted as 'speech'.

Al-M: I'm no expert here, but try this:

It was noted that if Urdu has made inroads in Punjab, Punjabi too has had its influence on Urdu. Whereas fifty years ago "Main nay wahan jaana hai" would have been rejected as an unacceptable form of the correct Urdu sentence "Mujhay wahan jana hai", the former is quiet prevalent in today's Urdu.

Punjabi has definitely influenced the accent of Urdu spoken in parts of Pakistan...maybe some of the grammatical features and vocabulary too...but if you consider that this phenomenon is largely restricted to those whose mothertongue was Punjabi in the first place, that's not so surprising. Anecdotally, I don't think Muhajirs (people whose mothertongue has always been Urdu, and who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 from places like Delhi, U.P, Bihar, Hyderabad, etc., and largely live in Karachi today) display such a Punjabi influence in their speech. It is people in Punjab who do. When viewed in that light, it is not so much a case of Urdu being influenced by Punjabi, but Punjabi-speakers abandoning their own tongue and adopting Urdu (with some Punjabisation of Urdu in the process).

Anecdotally, I don't think Muhajirs (people whose mothertongue has always been Urdu, and who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 from places like Delhi, U.P, Bihar, Hyderabad, etc., and largely live in Karachi today) display such a Punjabi influence in their speech. It is people in Punjab who do. When viewed in that light, it is not so much a case of Urdu being influenced by Punjabi, but Punjabi-speakers abandoning their own tongue and adopting Urdu (with some Punjabisation of Urdu in the process).

I think you are absolutely right. In Delhi-UP or even in Karachi there is no real Punjabization of Urdu.
Though some aspects of Pakistani Punjabi culture have been adopted in Karachi and have also entered the Delhi-UP culture through Karachi. For example, the marriage ceremonies in both Delhi, UP and Karachi have become more Punjabized where people hold seperate functions called Mehndi etc. before the actual shaadi.

Urdu has influenced Punjabi in Pakistan far more than Punjabi has influenced Urdu there.

Anecdotally, I don't think Muhajirs (people whose mothertongue has always been Urdu, and who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 from places like Delhi, U.P, Bihar, Hyderabad, etc., and largely live in Karachi today) display such a Punjabi influence in their speech

SA:

Lucknow Urdu has also taken a big hit...it's a pale shadow of the language it was 50 years ago, and apparently literacy in Urdu script is at an all-time low these days. Hyderabadi Dakkhini Urdu (very distinct, very charming) is in similarly bad shape...due to several factors, including significant migration from other parts of India due to the computer boom,
migration of Telugu speakers from the surrounding countryside, and major penetration of English among the upper and middle classes. In fact I can't think of a single Indian language which is really doing well these days. Except perhaps, ironically, Urdu in Pakistan.

true brownz speak bengali!

This makes me want all the more to, as a gora, walk into an airport and call up one of my desi friends and start speaking Hindi to them. I wonder what the effect would be.

Al Mujahid:

I know you should not be discriminated against for wearing hijab and I would defend your right to wear hijab, but I cant stand on the sidelines and cheer on the hijabis for wearing the hijab. I work in the Civil rights area part time (though getting very very tired of it) and more often than not, the hijabis want my affirmation of their exercise of an article of their faith. I see hijab as an exercise of an irrational belief, akin to how I see people who put tattoos on their foreheads. People with tattoos on their foreheads have certain constitutional rights and I will defend their constitutional rights to the best of my abilities. However I will question their wisdom in putting tattoos on their foreheads the same way I question the wisdom of the hijabi.

I'm not asking you to "cheer" me on, and the fact that you need to point it out is pretty irrelevant here. My belief in purdah (which encompasses more than just wearing a hijab) is steeped in rationality and reason, and I will not go in public without it. If you want to debate that rationality with me, we can do so in another venue. But the point is that I cannot just say, "I'm flying today, so I choose to not do purdah." That's like asking me to fly topless. It's not an option for me.

But make no mistake, I do not need YOUR affirmation for my choice of purdah. You may question my wisdom, and that's your right, but I serioulsy doubt your claim that "hijabis want [your] affirmation," as you put it. I do respect your belief, but it seems pretty irrelevant that you bring it up in general. You are, as you say, working to support civil rights--and that's your job. Support my right to wear a hijab. The fact that you're basically saying that it's stupid that I do so is your personal belief, but it does not belong in this particular debate and in fact undermines the idea of rights in general. It's like you're saying, "Well, you can do purdah, even though I think it's stupid and your life would be so much easier if you didn't"--the principle there is that life shouldn't be so much easier if I didn't. If you start becoming selective in your decision of what civil rights are acceptable, you're not serving your cause at all.

Not to mention that JOAT's point is spot on---in that case, you should also endors Sardars discarding their pugs and cutting their hair, etc. My point is, question my wisdom all you want, but it has no place in this debate because it is my right to do purdah.

but I serioulsy doubt your claim that "hijabis want [your] affirmation," as you put it.

i've seen what AMJ describes a fair amount.

It's like you're saying, "Well, you can do purdah, even though I think it's stupid and your life would be so much easier if you didn't"--the principle there is that life shouldn't be so much easier if I didn't.

&

in that case, you should also endors Sardars discarding their pugs and cutting their hair, etc.

yes. i do. richard dawkins has a point in the god delusion when he notes that if you couch a practice as "religious" it is off limits to flippant criticism. frankly, i think it's silly that people would get themselves in a huff about the way they dress, or what gibberish they profess, it seems rather adolescent. but then again, our species is in our adolescence, and that's part of reality.

but ismat, the point of course isn't your primitive religious beliefs, they're no more mumbo-jumbo than the spookery which claims that catholics eat the body and drink the blood of a god-man. your rights are your rights. but it is also AMJ's right to air his irritation if it's sincerely felt, even if it does naturally cause offense to acceptable superstition.

Razib:

yes. i do. richard dawkins has a point in the god delusion when he notes that if you couch a practice as "religious" it is off limits to flippant criticism. frankly, i think it's silly that people would get themselves in a huff about the way they dress, or what gibberish they profess, it seems rather adolescent. but then again, our species is in our adolescence, and that's part of reality.

but ismat, the point of course isn't your primitive religious beliefs, they're no more mumbo-jumbo than the spookery which claims that catholics eat the body and drink the blood of a god-man. your rights are your rights. but it is also AMJ's right to air his irritation if it's sincerely felt, even if it does naturally cause offense to acceptable superstition.

You're missing my point. In fact, I gladly welcome/invite criticism in the religious sphere, nor do I shy away from it. What Dawkins posits is wrong--that's his interpretation--I don't believe couching a practice as religious makes it off limits to criticism--in fact, quite the opposite! We must be able to criticize and dissect our beliefs in order to justify our defense of them. I defend my beliefs based not on accepted superstition, as you put it, but on reason. (Of course, I concede that not everyone thinks this way--many people accept religious practice on faith alone.) I won't justify a sardar's wearing of the pug, because I don't believe in the validity behind his reasoning. However, I will always support his right to wear it.

I have absolutely no qualms with Al Mujahid "airing his irritation" at the concept of purdah (and it did not offend me in the least.) That's his right, and that's what I actually affirmed in my original comment. My point here was that to do so is irrelevant in this particular debate; we're not discussing the validity of various beliefs or people's rights to question them. Finally, what's to say that you and Al Mujahid aren't perceiving "hijabis want[ing your] affirmation of their exercise"? You both claim to have seen it, but you offer no concrete or scientific evidence of what is going on in these hijabi women's minds. It's your assumption and just that. I can't know that your own biases didn't create such a perception in your mind.

Ismat,

I support your right to 'do purdah' but I am wondering what possible rationale you could have for doing so. I support your right to wear anything you want - lampshades, plastic flowers, lightbulbs, styrofoam, cheap silk, polyester and even spandex. But the minute you start talking about rationale, a red flag is raised for me - for possibly, in your mind, that rationale applies to me also. Is it this sort of rationale: 'Lampshades fit my head perfectly.' or this kind of rationale: 'Polyester, being cheap, is worn by those who are less materialistic than others'? There's a world of difference...

This makes me want all the more to, as a gora, walk into an airport and call up one of my desi friends and start speaking Hindi to them. I wonder what the effect would be.

I'm pretty sure people will just assume you're a well travelled businessman and not give it a second thought.

Sriram,
LOL, probably.

Razib:

Good point...Bengali (in Bangladesh) is also doing OK.

In fact I can't think of a single Indian language which is really doing well these days. Except perhaps, ironically, Urdu in Pakistan.

i'll use a veird analogy because i'm feeling very veird. (i had a full night sleep). culture is the foundation on which we build a civilization - balusters, gulleys, outhouses and all. you're making it out to be a stone dolmen that needs to press down and keep the body from giving up its ghost.

booms happen when people get to interact freestyle. indeed your next point is instructive.

Hyderabadi Dakkhini Urdu (very distinct, very charming) is in similarly bad shape...due to several factors, including significant migration from other parts of India due to the computer boom,

Dude my own Sardarji friends refer to themselves as surds. Is it a Delhi thing? Because I've heard it my whole life.

Yes its a metro thing. one of my Sikh friends told me this joke in high school- a surd by definition is irrational.

Amitabh:

Re: Post 97

a rather limited set of people (mostly Brahmins) from Uttar Pradesh had extremely disproportionate power to mold Hindi

The guy may have been mistaken for a Tamil terrorist.

you are, as you say, working to support civil rights--and that's your job. Support my right to wear a hijab. The fact that you're basically saying that it's stupid that I do so is your personal belief, but it does not belong in this particular debate and in fact undermines the idea of rights in general. It's like you're saying, "Well, you can do purdah, even though I think it's stupid and your life would be so much easier if you didn't"--the principle there is that life shouldn't be so much easier if I didn't. If you start becoming selective in your decision of what civil rights are acceptable, you're not serving your cause at all.

Your above argument is (I am sorry to say) just plain silly. I think you have a profound misunderstanding of how civil libertarians and people who work in the civil rights area think and operate. I support NAMBLA’s right to continue to lech over little boys even though I find their lechery morally repugnant. I don’t believe I am undermining their right by questioning their lechery. I will still defend them to the best of my abilities. I will also support the right of Neo-Nazis to not have their memorabilia banned like it is in some European nations. I will lose sleep if the Federal Government bans Nazi memorabilia and the Supreme Court does not find it unconstitutional. Am I undermining their right by not agreeing to put their memorabilia on my fridge?

But make no mistake; I do not need YOUR affirmation for my choice of purdah. You may question my wisdom, and that's your right, but I serioulsy doubt your claim that "hijabis want [your] affirmation," as you put it.

Herein lays the problem. The Neo- Nazi has no problem taking my help to defend his right but he doesn’t take any umbrage when I don’t agree with his views on Blacks and Jews. You on the other hand took great umbrage when I questioned your wisdom behind wearing a hijab. The Neo-Nazi does not need or want me to affirm his beliefs while you do. Your right to wear the hijab is a constitutional right immune to popular opinion to a large extent. The religious believe that even a questioning of their wisdom leads to undermining of the right. How so? Is it because the questioning of such a socially acceptable right is an undermining of the right by itself? If not, why did you question my questioning of your wisdom in wearing a hijab? Are religious dogmas beyond reproach? If not, why question my questioning? The Neo-Nazi doesn’t want affirmation, while you do, because your dogma just happens to carry more social acceptability.

Al Mujahid - woooaaaah. You don't even know yet why Ismat wears her hijab etc. and you're already comparing it to lechery and neo-nazism? This is the kind of talk that hurts and polarizes people. MAYBE she 'does purdah' cause it reminds her of her mom and grandma. Maybe she doesn't like males staring at her. Maybe she's not in great shape and it's a convenient way to hide it. Maybe it 'makes her feel feminine' (I once heard someone say this). YOU DON'T KNOW WHY she chooses to do purdah and yet you're already comparing donning purdah to neo-nazism and pedophilia? You do not sound like a civil libertarian; you sound like a fascist.

Waiting for Godwin

Muslim guys like Al Mujahid for debauchery can't win. Stay silent on Muslim patriarchy and you're complicit. Criticise the religion and you're an apostate and Uncle Tom. Criticise the practice of veiling/purdah and hijab from a personal perspective, viewing it as something with patriachal roots, and

You do not sound like a civil libertarian; you sound like a fascist.

Yikes. It's tough to say the right thing sometimes.

Al Mujahid - woooaaaah. You don't even know yet why Ismat wears her hijab etc. and you're already comparing it to lechery and neo-nazism?

he was contrasting. the use of neo-nazis though is probably better suited as an exemplar in an adversarial legal setting than a discussion board. the point isn't that ismat has x rationalization for her purdah. all AMJ was doing was expressing the old "i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it." but i think reiterating that one can disapprove, or be in disagreemant with, what one defends is an insight that needs to be reinforced over and over, because a lot of people don't get it, and it doesn't come naturally.

Al Mujahid - woooaaaah. You don't even know yet why Ismat wears her hijab etc. and you're already comparing it to lechery and neo-nazism?

Where did I say that? Are you being facetious?

A Buddhist Critique of Christianity

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=639383

Maybe they thought this guy was in porn?

but i think reiterating that one can disapprove, or be in disagreemant with, what one defends is an insight that needs to be reinforced over and over, because a lot of people don't get it, and it doesn't come naturally.

Apparently, you are right! especially in light of comment #

Comment # 146.

also,

But the point is that I cannot just say, "I'm flying today, so I choose to not do purdah." That's like asking me to fly topless. It's not an option for me.

ismat might not generalize her rationalization for why she wear's purdah, but my own impression is that this is a major issue:

a) if you reason that not wearing a hijab is analogy to being "topless"

b) and most women do not wear a hijab

does not that entail that most women are going "topless" operationally? when a muslim woman says that she wears the hijab because she has "self respect" and that she is like a "pearl which must be cherished," does not that entail that those who do not wear a hijab have no self respect and are not pearls who must be cherished?

of course you can reason one's way around these implications, but, most people are pretty stupid and have minimal rational faculties.

Muslim guys like Al Mujahid for debauchery can't win

AMJ is as muslim as richard dawkins is christian.

I think there is some conflation here between purdah and hijab. Purdah is strict gender segregation while hijab is purportedly a component of the modest attire allegedly mandated for Muslim women in Verse 24:31.
Here is a website for the advocacy of the hijab.

Yes its a metro thing. one of my Sikh friends told me this joke in high school- a surd by definition is irrational.

Math jokes are sometimes helped by explanatory links :)

AMFD/Razib, I don't think you get it. I agree with you. Question all you want--you should. I believe it's entirely necessary, and we need such dialogue. I'm not sure how much more plainly I can state this. "Are religous dogmas beyond reproach?" Not at all. I'm not questioning your questioning; I'm saying that in this particular debate, it has no relevance. I stand by that. I didn't, as you put it, take umbrage when you questioned my wisdom. "Am I undermining their right by not agreeing to put their memorabilia on my fridge?" No, and I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't question their actions. I basically said that in comment 136, I'm not sure why you think I have a "profound misunderstanding" of how civil rights activists think and operate. I rightly wonder why you bring up your belief in the moral repugnancy of purdah in a debate during which we're discussing whether or not I should have to remove my hijab to fly. That is all.

^ Haha, nice!

Yes, it is used a lot in Delhi for Sikh jokes. It's usually coupled with 'Absurd'.

AMFD/Razib, I don't think you get it. I agree with you.

OK :)

Peace.

Re-reading the comments, it seems I sailed in without properly reading what was being argued. Apologies, AMJ, for saying you sounded like a fascist - I missed the function of the neo-nazi and pedophile examples and took them as straight comparison.