October 06, 2007
Hate Crimes In Maryland; Arrests MadeNews
Via SALDEF, a report on a local Fox affilate about a probable hate crime that occurred in Burtonsville, MD, on September 15. (Warning, the images below are a bit graphic. You might want to finish your breakfast first.)
This particular story caught my attention because, first of all, the area is very close to where my parents live in Maryland. It’s a very safe area, and my folks go out for walks all the time, sometimes around dusk — this could have been someone I know (though in fact, I don’t know this particular family). Secondly, the gentlemen who were attacked are in their 70s, close to my grandfather’s age — and I’m particularly disgusted at the twisted version of national pride that might lead a group of teenagers to attack the elderly in this way.
The day after the two Sikhs were attacked, a Muslim man was attacked by a group of teenagers in the same town. That incident has not been detailed in the media, and I don’t know how badly the man in the second attack was injured.
Luckily, two arrests have been made. I’m not sure yet how they found the kids responsible, or whether further arrests are in the offing; we’ll probably hear more in the coming days.
Recently, Thomas Friedman wrote a column entitled, “9/11 is over.” I wish it were true — I gather he does too — though sadly that is clearly not the case.
amardeep on October 6, 2007 08:04 AM in News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
This would never happen in London. I pity Sikhs in the US
It does happen in the UK sometimes SpicyBrownMunda, but mostly in small provinical towns where there are hardly any Asians, although not in London.
I have a friend whose Sikh Uncle went to a family wedding in Texas recently, and I specifically asked him what it was like. He said he never encountered any hostility in his three weeks there and he travelled quite alot. So you can't generalise about entire countries.
Thats what I said mate. I know it happens in the UK, but not in London. Heard its quite awful for Sikhs in West Midlands. In general, where there are BNP (British National Party) politicians/supporters they'll hate on any brown person. bloody xenophobic racist wankers
thanks to pakistanis, the f*cking BNP are gaining support and influence all over the UK, including London.
More like thanks to the pathology of the BNP. When it comes to demagoguery, everybody drinks from the same cup.
the demographics for the area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burtonsville%2C_MD
The racial makeup of the area was 52.05% White, 25.42% African American, 0.22% Native American, 17.62% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 1.64% from other races, and 3.04% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 5.60% of the population.
If you heard it's awful for Sikhs in the West Midlands, your judgment is even more suspect. The West Midlands is along with London, the most multicultural part of the UK, and culturally and demographically, one of the main places for Sikhs (and Indians) in the whole country. Sikhs (or any other ethnic minority) don't have problems like this in the West Midlands.
Ok.
Great.
You're not Jatt. : p
Amardeep, thanks for posting the update, and I'm really glad the police is making headway in the case. I hope there are well-publicized and successful prosecutions and some exemplary sentences are handed out. Apart from being a diverse community, as Razib points out, Burtonsville is barely five minutes outside the DC beltway. While these things should not happen anywhere, it is certainly a matter of great concern that they could happen in a diverse metropolitan area just outside the national capital. While lowering the temperature of the national rhetoric around 9/11 will certainly help, as Tom Friedman also points out, that will take a while. And even after that happens, unfortunately there will still be the risk that such things could happen. As the comments about BNP in Britain tell us, otherizing discourses arise from sources outside the direct rhetorical ambit of 9/11.
Bobby - Where do you live?
Camille - Are you Hindu Punjabi? or non-Jatt Sikh? Real Punjabis are Jatts.
I'm officially done with SM. Too many confused ignorant Indian Americans here.
Cheers!
Goodbye.
Camille - Are you Hindu Punjabi? or non-Jatt Sikh? Real Punjabis are Jatts.
"Real Punjabis are Jatts"? What kind of caste-ist nonsense is that?
If you're really leaving SM, good riddance. (In any case, I just banned you.)
Jesus f*cking christ... that's all I've got to say.
I'm curious though- were the attackers white or black?
Nala, no word on that. The attackers are also minors, so it's unlikely that their names or identities will be released publicly.
Woot, woot!
I feel more comfortable without the constant intimidation of your height and Scythian-ness.
;-)
Sincerely,
An ignorant Indian American
amardeep and rob:
i think 6-3SpicyBrownScythianMunda has been attempting some spoorlamish type parody for some time now...ever since that 6-4 scythian army guy appeared in a thread a few months back.
i'm finally with no von. hate groups are responsible for their own pathology. the culture from which they sprang may also want to examne how they enabled such pathology. and only after that should we look at external factors...pakistan, american foreign policy, etc.
This was a nasty attack for which there's no excuse. But I think there's something about the whole "mistaken identity" talk that is wrong-headed. First, people don't only hate sikhs because they mistake them for Muslims. They've been hating them for a while. In new jersey/ny, they still hate them basically for being in business and I'm sure that's the case elsewhere.
There is something somewhat bothersome in the Sikh insistence that they not be mistaken for Muslims. On one hand, fine, I understand the desire to be properly recgonized. But on the other hand, I do wish there was a more than occasional word from such poltical advocates as in the newspiece that say "and you shouldn't beat up muslims either." Perhaps that isn't their business, but I think it is. Eventually, I don't think it actually is mistaken identity that causes more sikhs to face violence post 9/11. It's general intolerance. If a Sikh in Howard Beach (or maryland in this case) was able to sit the attacker down, explain the difference between his religion and Islam, differences in his regional background and linguistic background, all that stuff, the attacker would still attack him.
--
I don't understand the London comments. Are you saying nobody attacks a sikh in London because the sikhs are too tough and thick in numbers? I don't buy it. According to the newspiece, DC is 2nd most densely populated sikh place in US. Further, these black kids in brooklyn are known to be thick in numbers and tough, full of political clout, but they get chased on highways, beaten with bats, etc. But perhaps there's something else to the comments, and if so, explain why such an attack would not happen in london.
Landmark Education is working with various government officials in various countries, hoping to end war by 2012. That probably won't happen.
Two big buildings went down and several hundred Americans died on 9/11. That's "what happened". And since that day we've been hearing a BIG STORY around that event. As they would say in Landmark; "IT HAPPENED. GET OVER IT ALREADY."
Time to move on.
Youth of today need to learn to respect elders as well.
Actually, I get the impression that lots of Sikh organisations do make that point all the time.
How would you know? The nature of alot of these attacks seems to be that the victims are singled out because of their appearance, which feeds into specifically anti-Muslim paranoia and racism. As such, they are related to 9/11 and all the 'backlash' surrounding the heightened demonisation of people of this appearance. For you to even dismiss that as a possibility seems a litte rash and fatuous.
he's the same person... i think in a thread while back he said he was going to change his name... good thing he's gone too... what iof he found out that I'm a non-punjabi non-idian lurker?? :)
amardeep, i think i saw somewhere that the attackers were black.
I'm really confused about how an agreement with NVM on the racist, fascist, anti-VME proclivities of the BNP somehow challenge my identity. Crazy. At any rate, thanks, Amardeep :)
noblekinsman, this is actually one of the most frustrating things -- in my opinion -- when doing coalitional work around hate crime issues. I understand that Sikhs don't want to be confused with Muslims, and while SOME spokespeople are vocal about it being inappropriate to target Muslims, not everyone in the community realizes that sometimes their comments seem to tacitly accept marginalizing/targeting Muslims. All that said, if it's any consolation, there IS conversation in the community about framing their responses in a more conscientious way. It's just that those responses don't always get media coverage.
I'm also confused about the London commentary -- up through 1995 at least 50% of hate-based violent crimes in London neighborhoods were against desis, and within that group, at least half were Sikh. Maybe things have changed substantially in the past 10 years, but the pessimist in me doubts that all areas of London feel "safe" for desis, including desi Sikhs.
Tara, I don't mean to be rude or unkind, so I apologize if this doesn't convey my tone well, but does EVERY topic have to come back to a plug for Landmark?
amardeep, i think i saw somewhere that the attackers were black.
i looked it up on google news and couldn't find anything....
hmm... i forgot where i saw it but let me look for it, yesterday i saw it (then again i was up to my eyeballs in coffee..), maybe i'm getting my stories mixed up, if i did, i'm sorry. :)
I suck.. I'm sorry.. I got my stories mixed up :(. I'm sorry. Peace!!
@ # 12..Nala ...that explict and unparlimentary language is the domain of Christian dissidents, not others.
Have the gall to use relevant names from your own background. I'm afraid you don't have rights to that particular expression.
Where are the secularists when we need em?
camille, as they teach in landmark, GET OVER IT!
I think telling people to "get over" harrowing, traumatic events is misguided at best and indefensibly obnoxious at worst. Until you've suffered through X, don't presume that you have any concept of how it feels or might affect you. Beyond that, different people are affected differently; a one size fits all slogan of "get over it" doesn't seem to take that in to account. If it was so easy to "get over" things, many people would.
Camille, I didn't find your point rude, at all. Hyping something which someone endorses to the extent which "Landmark" has been mentioned recently is a violation of our commenting policy.
If one of you loves something and it has changed your life, create your own blog and detail exactly that there-- hurling "Landmark" at every thread to see if it sticks does the program far more worse than good. I have a dear friend who is a Landmark alum and Tara's over-reliance on it as a response to every topic has undone whatever good will I had towards a program I previously thought of positively. :(
Tara, since you love Landmark so much, may I sincerely suggest that you chill with the "get over it"s and the constant referencing of it? I'm sure it would appall you if it turned out that you're turning people off to a worthy opportunity, but that's exactly what you are doing (and it's not just me who is feeling that way).
ohhhhh. this whole time i thought it was a joke.
Yeah, I thought it was some sort of parody thing - except that there were too many people named "SpicyBrownScythianMunda" around, some varying only in their purported heights and in the degree of their weirdness, so I wasn't sure if it was the same person or a bunch of copycats.
Real Punjabis are Jatts. I'm officially done with SM. : sounds like a suicide attempt.
If you're really leaving SM, good riddance. (In any case, I just banned you.) : capital punishment for attempted suicide! Failsafe! :D
it sounds like a parody but he like's to throw "scythian" "jatt" and "punjabi jatt" around... same MO same person... a parody wouldn't be so blatant.. right?
i mean to say "likes"
if i recall, the first guy was an american soldier living in the south. this guy sound british, even using the term "mate" at one time. but if its the same guy, its clearly a cry for help from someone having an identity crisis. poor poor little Scythian.
i am pretty certain they are different guys. same scythian sense of humor though.
sorry i meant to say, same scythian sense of "humor" (or are the quotes a redundancy since i said scythian already?)
well whoever he is aren't we glad he's gone?? i think he or they was/were the proverbial pink elephant in the middle of the room. he wanted people to say "oh you superior handsome godlike scythian you!!" (hmm i threw up in my mouth a little)but no one ever gave him that satisfaction. no matter how loud he blew his own horn.
People, please get back on topic.
if what I said was against SM comment policy, I apologize. Otherwise.... it's an expletive that you get used to living in America, a country that is mostly Christian, especially if you've gone to public school and have listened to kids curse in the schoolyard. Sometimes I say 'Arey Ram' or 'Sai Nada Sai Nada' or 'Abba,' but that's mostly around people who come from the same background. Please tell me where I can find this particular bill of rights that you speak of?
Back on topic... In the video clip, they mentioned that the police comissioner (I think that's what they said his position was) released a statement but didn't state that the crime was a hate crime. Why would he possibly not do that??
senator john mccain, welcome to sepia. personally, i prefer "blazing shiva balls". only for cursing, not in my ziti, mind you.
Maybe I should clarify that by saying 'a country in which the majority of the population identifies as believing in the Christian faith.' I believe in the separation of church and state and all that.
noblekinsman @17 and camille @21, i agree fully. wasn't there a recent documentary about crimes against sikhs too? but most of the criticisms take the tone of "hey, don't come after us because we're not them" rather than "not only are you a racist, you are an idiot too".
and can they please stop pronouncing it poon-job?
also, can someone clarify once and for all the correct pronunciation of 'sikh'?
They pronounce it that way because it is often spelled Punjab instead of Panjab. However if it was spelled Panjab they would probably pronounce it Pan as in frying pan, jab as in I jabbed her in the arm.
like under is pronounced oonder, and lunge is pronounced loongay?
seek and ye shall find.
I'm talking about Landmark too much. Understood. I'm just enthusiastic. I'll try to contain myself in the future. However;
You might want to examine why you are so easily influenced as to let your good-will towards something become undone simply because an unknown poster on the internet comes off as over-zealous.
nala, it's Sikh with a short "i" (not "seekh").
Tara, it's ok. I like reading your opinion, but it was hard to find it between all the Landmark-plugging. I think it would have been that way for others, so I don't think ANNA's reaction is unique or a sign of some kind of personal shortcoming.
dravidian lurker, I know :( And to be honest, I have heard people say it's ok to profile Muslims. Clearly the whole "unity in struggle" idea hasn't gotten through.
Tara, there's a concept called giving people their space instead of being pushy. Landmark acolytes are not familiar with it, or choose to ignore it. That's why I prefer Krishnamurthi - I don't have zealots constantly shouting in my ear how great J.K. is/was and how they have seen the light after reading J.K.'s books (not much different from Randroids). I can go at my own pace. Though I can understand that sometimes pushing the envelope or challenging people can lead them to insights, but it's usually acceptable from people we trust - not from strangers on the Internet. That's pretty rare IMO. So, maybe you should examine yourself as to what exactly are you trying to achieve by being pushy, and whether it is being effective or not. A pragmatic person also does some evaluation of one's efforts. Sorry, Amardeep for the OT comment.
How could the 9/11 mentality of suddenly being attacked by some vaguely defined network of malicious individuals ever leave the american psyche with nearly every American politician facing re-election, or needing support on a single issue, reciting it as a mantra in the hopes of precluding all possibility of rational thought?
For some people, it's turban=muslim=arab. I would be very surprised if their assailants knew they were Sikh and even a smidgen of what that might entail.
You are correct. From the Montgomery County department of police web site: [link]
Nala,
Just as many a time here at sepia, people have voiced their dissent at being treated unfairly for being Sikh, Hindu and Muslim..this does not give you the leeway to use somebody elses religious beliefs, however common it may be, as a statement of disbelief.Would it be fair if the expression were to include a hindu god/godess? I'm well aware of American slang as well as equally adept at the use of swear words. But please restrain yourself and think of what you say yeah? It is absolutely unfair and unfortunate if you use such language if we are expressing our dismay on a RACIAL and Religious attack. The bill of rights you ask for is the same one where Whites are frowned upon for the usage of the N-word. I'm sure there is something in the fine print :)
There is a growing racist, xenophobic tendency (hatred?)in many (not all) non-muslim African Americans towards muslims, people of eastern decent and others whom they believe to be muslim.
America as a whole and black Americans in particular need to address this, pronto.
Here we go again. why bring the race here? it could be any group of teenagers. I don't understand why desis have such a nasty attitude toward blacks.
we dont well i don but sum1 in anotha post sed dey wer black but itz happnin jamaican n somali beef n stuff
If the assailants were white, believe me, the attitude displayed would be worse. We tend to be more PC when it comes to blacks because of the "unity in struggle" concept mentioned above in post #46, a desire to be seen as PC, or we are just more afraid to speak out about these issues when it comes to black people rather than white people.
Regarding "unity in struggle", yes, some people of color see an idealistic common ground, but on a practical level I think each community's "struggle" is quite different, meaning we are all struggling for slightly different things. If you break it down further to the individual level, each individual is struggling for something different.
It's not a nasty attitude to acknowledge that prejudice against muslims and perceived "foreigners" is a growing problem in the USA right now.
its somewhat interesting that the alledged perps are black. but at the end of the day its probably just a reflection of american xenophobia more than anything else.
b/c now we know its not a hate crime...since blacks can't be racist
jk's the only person in the history of mankind who was able to pull off the virtually impossible comb over. normally, those who engage in this practice only expose their state of denial to the world, as those thin sweaty strands of hair never look like a full head. But jKs side hair was so thick they could actually pass for top-of-the-head hair.
amazing man indeed.
"(Warning, the images below are a bit graphic. You might want to finish your breakfast first.)"
>> this is what's wrong with desi community, most likely. I saw the video, and the worst I could find were two black eyes. Sure what happened to those men were despicable, and this comment is *NOT* about that. What I am talking about is the poster's comment. If the image of a black eye is what he/she finds graphic enough to lose his/her appetite, and if that's a general reaction from the typical desi guy/gal here, well we have gone from soft (never was all that tough anyway) to extrasoft..
Why are desis never angry? I am not advocating anything illegal, but I have seen many times over that desis, faced with stuff like this, are never angry. They are always "sad it happened", will justify stuff saying 'it's all fate' or 'what's the point; or 'it shows their ignorance about us' etc etc. No one ever is outraged, angry to pursue for a reaction or to do anything about it even legally.. always "sad", and then it's back to the comfortable couch or armchair, or a potluck or a cricket match on TV.
In the end american/british comforts are worth a few insults and black eyes, eh, people? I mean, what's the point in keeping up ones self-respect and pride if it means keeping the Indian passport and possibly going back to that dusty dirty country? Ofcourse, there's the supreme joy of taking orders from Sonia Gandhi, still..
oh, des_punjabi_rexdale, i don't speak jive.
never heard limb-"augh-some" saying that. is that true, manju?
to me, it's not about unity in struggle, it is basic decency.
but to behave, in the absence of any evidence, as if it is a problem especially prevalent among black americans is.
When the assailants in such situations are white (has happened before), then is it a problem especially prevalent among white Americans?
no, it isn't. i think manju @55 has it right.
i think the real problem is teenagers. i hate those people.
Maybe. Maybe not. We'll have to hear from the assailants themselves what it was. Nevertheless it was posted by Amardeep as having something to do with how muslims or people perceived to be muslims have been treated since 9/11.
Why are desis never angry?
A thousand years of slavery and dhimmitude. Aint that right, Nussbaum ki Aulad Amardeep.
Tara, I am finished with this issue. I was trying to be straightforward. It's awesome that you would repay my attempt at sensitivity with a blunt pronouncement with how I'm flawed for being turned off by your over-the-top, judgmental obnoxiousness...when any normal person would feel that way after how you've carried on. Landmark doesn't mean shit to me. A friend went through it and benefited from it. Don't take my "good-will" too literally; I don't ponder Landmark on a daily or even yearly basis.
You might want to examine why you feel the need to shove Landmark down everyone's throat and how you make it seem like a cult vs an opportunity for growth. Is that an unkind thing for me to say? Well, now you know how you made me feel, which is something useful since you seem to over-dwell on "get over it" vs. compassion or comprehension.
You actually characterize yourself as an "unknown poster who is over-zealous" about something? If that's what you think, perhaps you should follow your hallowed advice and get over such a misinterpretation. Your "comeback" was inappropriate and further proof of insensitivity/an obtuse inability to sense how one is being perceived; did you not notice how you were being gently lampooned by others here? Did Landmark overlook self-awareness? If so, ask for a refund.
As far as I can recall, most of the attacks on Sikhs have been in the bigger cities: New York/Queens, Maryland/DC, Pittsburgh (I think?), San Fransisco (Balbir Singh Sodhi's brother) and Mesa, Arizona (Balbir Singh Sodhi) (Note: sorry, but I'm not sure how large Mesa is).
I wonder if there are any records of the incidence of hate crimes in more "rural" areas, eg Minneapolis, Madison, Bloomington, Cleveland, etc. The low rate of attacks could be due to the fewer non-Whites/Blacks there, but if the number turns out to be low proportionate to the population of the city, then maybe, after removing the variance in the data due to the prevalence of crime in older urban areas, the number of hate crimes may not be that high at all. SALDEF does a heckuva job in keeping things in the public eye and more power to them, but if we don't know whether the number of hate crimes (on all non-Whites/Blacks) have been increasing over time, then it's hard to say whether the phenomenon is receding or ramping up and how things are changing across locations (big/small cities).
Sorry if this is a bit of a ramble...
As violence rises against Sikhs and Muslims and anybody who looks Muslim in the US, the US Congress is still concerned with the growing phantom anti-semitism in the US while ignoring the threat to Muslims and people who look Muslim.
Desi Disgusted (#58),
RTFP. Read the rest of my original post. I said:
and I’m particularly disgusted at the twisted version of national pride that might lead a group of teenagers to attack the elderly in this way.
How is that not angry?
Incidentally, the whole point of organizations like SALDEF, Sikh Coalition, AALDEF, etc. is enable victims of hate crimes and other kind of oppression to "do something about it legally." If you want to support these victims, send a check to SALDEF. Or better yet, get a law degree.
i'm guessing you've never broken any of the bones in your face before. Depending on the severity of the fracture, and it's location, it's not an injury that you forget about in a week. Even the slightest hairline fracture will remind you of the event that caused it, sometimes months after the fact. A colleague of mine sustained a similar injury, suffered from glaucoma for a month and went through surgery to repair and reorder the bones around her eye. But if you think it ain't a big deal, I heartily encourage you to pick a fight with a big person and proffer your eye socket as a target. Perhaps then you will develop the capability for empathy if not sympathy.
.this is tantamount to justifying domestic abuse with the tax benefits of filing as a married couple. If i want pain and suffering, but for fun, I'll go to the friendly, neighborhood dominatrix--not the ICE. Prospective citizens should pay only the time debt, taxes and registration fees that are required for citizenship. Sparta is dead and gone, masochistic desires for black eyes and 'struggle' notwithstanding.
dravidian, I understand and agree with you. I apologize for being loose/fast with my characterization. I think there is an underlying assumption that Sikhs, because they have been targets for violence/discrimination, ought to be sympathetic to issues of discrimination as they face Muslims/Arabs. This is the same underlying logic when people find themselves disappointed in POC-on-POC violence. It's not a fair assumption to make, and we've seen that isn't accurate, even if it is an ideal (i.e. inclusivity) worth working towards. I'm with Tara on this one -- issues of nativism and racial violence are not exclusive to white folks in America.
Harminder, there have definitely been cases of hate violence towards Sikhs in middle America, also. I wish I could remember more specifically, but right after 9/11 there were a series of incidents in Ohio, and there may have been a few in Indiana/Illinois as well. I'm sorry I can't remember more clearly, but I have a feeling SALDEF or Sikh Coalition will have previous press releases on their sites about it. There was definitely a mini-documentary that came out about two young (30s) Sikh guys who were attacked at a Cleveland Indians football game.
To piggyback on murali's comment, I also find it sickening that so many attacks from 2001-present have been directed towards the elderly. Again, my memory is fuzzy, but there were attacks on an elderly couple way back around 2002 as well. These kind of injuries, while violent and horrific in and of themselves, can be life-threatening for an older person.
ha ha ha Manju. I love you. :)
Hell so how is it a hate crime,so if I get jumped it's a hate crime,some people just get jumped because the perps are assholes,few people out there think they can beat somebody down because they have the numbers game on them. I also agree with what the other poster said I hate teenagers because they can sometimes be assholes. I know I didn't read through this like I should have but were racists slurs shouted and I live in the area and did not hear about this.
WTF? I personally don't give a shit if non-Hindus use Hindu expletives (um, not that it's that common), because I think once we're wandering into the land of such expletives, I think it's pretty much understood that we're not insulting the word we are using so much as 'expressing disbelief,' as you said. It's not like I said, 'Fucking Christians who believe in Jesus fucking christ' or 'Fucking Muslims and their fucking Allah' or 'Fucking Sikhs and fucking Guru Nanak.' I don't think someone cursing to express their disbelief is the same as insulting all followers of that religion. And seriously, PLEASE don't equate an expletive phrase in ANY way to these attacks. I'm done talking to you.
I was curious because most of the really virulent, hateful racism (like this) that my family and brown friends have faced in the NY tri-state area post-9/11 has been from African-Americans. Whereas the things that white people do tend to be a different type of racism like 'Report brown neighbor to the cops because they have too many other suspicious-looking brown people visiting them over the weekend, or Tell MTA authority about that brown turbaned man with a big bag because he looks suspicious.' I'm not saying that this is how it is ALWAYS, I'm just saying that this is how it tends to be in my EXPERIENCE. I think it's basically what Camille said--that nativism isn't only found among white Americans, but also among black Americans. Because pretty much no one among my family or friends has encountered such racism from Latinos or black Caribbean or African immigrants, interestingly enough.
I don't think being curious amounts to 'having a nasty attitude toward blacks.' Personally, I find inter-minority relations interesting, so that was another reason I asked.
P.S. I am fucking SICK of desis (and Asian-Americans on a larger scale) being told that they are being beat down upon because they are 'racist' and 'exclusionary' themselves. Stop hating and stop blaming the victim.
We might have a healthy sense of detachment from the goings on in the material world?
this question as to their being black, etc. all goes towards how slippery and genuinely wrong "hate crime" designations are. You are allowed to hate. You are not allowed to hit. Hitting and hating at the same time should be illegal for the hitting and not for the hating. But then it gets to the question of how to choose a victim. For example, in new york lately there's been a case where some kids (of I think mixed background but the main one or solicitor was white) found a black gay guy on Internet, told him to come to Bay Ridge for sex, robbed him and chased him into oncoming traffic, boom dead. It is being prosecuted as a "hate crime" as in "let's find a faggot and rob him because we hate gay people" as opposed to simply "let's find a gay guy to rob because it's easy to rob gay people when they're looking for sex late at night." Defense lets us know that it turns out the perpetrator is gay, hence it "can't" be a hate crime. Fact is, it still COULD be a hateful crime. No doubt alot of homophobic violence comes from closeted gay people.
black people are far more overt and public with their haranguing of other minorities, especially in public. They are more likely to make ching chong jokes and fuck with chinese people, to say shit about turbaned people or muslims, etc. on the train. But when it comes to beating someone up, is it that they genuinely "hated" either the sikh or the muslim or anything else, or that they saw a turban and thought it would be a fun thing to hit. I am guessing the latter, which is why the whole idea of "let's let them know that we're not muslims" approach is not only unethical in a way, but also ineffective, when it comes to preventing assaults on sikhs.
well, i brought up the demographics really quickly because i've seen SM threads on hate crimes bring out people who want to talk about how all white people are naturally racist and that this is all you can expect from redneck crackers. i figured adding different possibilities by posting the demographics into the mix would prevent people from jumping the gun.
I also felt that this page may turn into an anti-white riot. I'm not "happy" that these two men got attacked, nor am I "happy" that it was by black kids, but I think the fact that it was may make those who might've jumped on the "see, all white people are racist pigs" bandwagon, think twice. I believe that had the kids been white we would be seeing such types of comments, we've seen them before. My comment that we as desis tend to steer away from making similar assessments about black people is based on the fact that I see much less vitrol spewed against them when it comes to situations like this. I believe that is due to fear. Fear of being perceived as non-PC, fear of being perceived as being racist towards other people of color, and maybe just fear of black people in general.
My comment that we as desis tend to steer away from making similar assessments about black people is based on the fact that I see much less vitrol spewed against them when it comes to situations like this. I believe that is due to fear. Fear of being perceived as non-PC, fear of being perceived as being racist towards other people of color, and maybe just fear of black people in general.
it isn't a desi thing, it is a white thing. specifically, many brown americans are socialized to be sensitive toward issues of group conflict and cautious about generalizing racially in public forums. except when it comes to whites (again, this isn't a brown thing. many white liberals will generalize about "european patriarchy" blah, blah, blah pretty quickly while being cautious about trying to understand why the aztecs practiced cannibalism after their flower wars in the context of their cultural traditions). many non-american browns don't have the same issues obviously. it is a testament to the civilized nature of SM readers that they tend to flinch from turning a black-on-brown crime into a black vs. brown dynamic. but, i wish we'd see this a little more when it comes to whites.
this is terrible. i suppose the elderly are being targeted because they are more vulnerable. =( i can't believe this is still happening six years later.
i don't think the warning was for people who have "gone soft". amardeep and murali already responded to this, so i won't rehash the issue. i completely echo amardeep's comment @ 69.
i think a lot of problems with speaking out stems from the way that the older generation perceives american sentiment (whites and blacks) towards themselves. i mean, if the media is hesitating on calling it a hate crime (though i don't know why they would) i'm not surprised that the older generation would hesitate to protest strongly. i'm not saying it's right, but i can see the pov. furthermore, when there have been protests for south asian rights, (ex: bhairavi desai and the south asian taxi drivers) how much of a difference did it really make, in terms of different treatment of south asians as a whole?
* note, i am in no way advocating that we should not protest the wrongs done to us. i'm saying that as our generation grows up we have more of a voice and more power to change things.
~ deerstalker (formerly divya, but i found out that there was other divya who posted on SM first... yeah.)
Blacks are the most maligned group and desis in general seem to share the worst stereotypes about the blacks. The level of hatred desis have for blacks is shocking. But not surprising since desi culture promotes things like 'fair and lovely' and detests things that are black.
Native americans are much maglined group. There is no need to heap further insult on this group. I am surprised that people are saying that they need kick a horse that has already been flogged to death for centuries.
yet another desi - what is your point? what does it have to do with this post or with what anyone said so far? NO ONE has said shit like 'oh figures they're black.' so, again, what is your point?
oops, my comment was intended toward the first yad (#82)
Razib carvaka,
You mentioned how liberals hesitate to talk about certain practices of native americans. Along the same lines, do you expect the liberals who condemn holocaust to quote shylock's lines from the merchant of venice whenever they condemn holocaust?
I love Shylock - favourite character in the entire literary universe.
i wish we'd see this a little more when it comes to whites.
The problem is you're equating white as "just another ethnicity" when in fact that's not true. The white identity is formed in tandem with racial superiority. The two concepts are inseparable, so when a black/hispanic/chinese/eskimo attacks a south asian, based on race... it really can't be tied to a legacy of supremacy, certainly not any kind of 'black' supremacy. However when a white (or group of whites) attack and say thing such as "get out of our country, etc.. etc.." it speaks to a legacy that simply doesn't exist for other groups, here in the US.
I also felt that this page may turn into an anti-white riot.
...and if we just look at it from a practical point of view. Every race has it's perceived perceptions, why do we get mushy about one's that apply to whites? I walk into a public forum, I need to essentially "prove" I'm not a boxcutter wielding terrorist, blacks have to worry about cops mistaking their wallets/fingers/candy bars/wreaths/eyelashes/toe lint as a gun, so whats the big deal with white people having to go that extra mile to show they dont have racist thinking in their heads.. when all logic would predict they have more likelihood to practice that kind of thinking (whether it's practiced in a virulent or subtle way)? Why bend over backwards to make sure the poor white folk aren't misunderstood? It's that white privilege that supposedly doesn't exist.
HMF - don't forget, talking about race means that you're seeing things that aren't there, you just want something to bitch about, you're 'too angry,' and you're really the racist one!
just as i wouldn't prejudge blacks or (even) you till you voiced your opinions, i wouldn't want to prejudge whites either. it's not their privilege, it's just the common courtesy of human interaction.
HMF - don't forget, talking about race means that you're seeing things that aren't there, you just want something to bitch about, you're 'too angry,' and you're really the racist one!
You should have been around to join the others telling Rosa Parks and Medgar Evers that...
just as i wouldn't prejudge blacks or (even) you till you voiced your opinions, i wouldn't want to prejudge whites either. it's not their privilege, it's just the common courtesy of human interaction.
oh but give me a break man, do you honestly think in a general sense people have the same level of pre-judgement of whites and non-whites? it is their privilege that they are immune to collectivization (or at least, less immune to it)
I agree with the general gist of what you're saying, but I don't agree with this. Per Avenue Q, "Everbody's a little bit racist..."
i thought tara was talking about attitudes on this thread. and in any case, i don't think the answer to one pernicious attitude is to foster other poisonous ones.
I think you need to get your sarcasm-dar updated.
HMF, nala is being sarcastic.
(I think??)
Agreed that it is "not the same thing" to discuss white on brown hate vs. brown on brown hate. Again, I don't want to get into it, but I think folks really like to believe there's a "zero-sum" game around race relations. That's all well and fine if you don't live in a society predicated upon the racial superiority of one group over all else. That doesn't mean that we aren't complex creatures with multiple identities and issues going for us, but it's not the same playing field. By analogy, it would be like arguing that the Murdoch "news" corp and an indie blog are on equal footing because they're both media outlets. We know this is not the case.
I agree with the general gist of what you're saying, but I don't agree with this. Per Avenue Q, "Everbody's a little bit racist..."
Then you just don't understand the nature of what whiteness is in the United States, it's socially defined as much as biologically. That's why when irish, italians, greeks etc... weren't considered 'white' until they started playing ball.
i thought tara was talking about attitudes on this thread. and in any case, i don't think the answer to one pernicious attitude is to foster other poisonous ones.
well, I'd again disagree that the attitude that whites are more predisposed to make judgement calls based on race is "fostered" by non whites. Rather it's been shown by 400 years of behavior.
No actually, I agree that on an institutional level whites benefit from their privilege and minorities lose out. But on a social level, all sorts of racism exists. I don't feel any less resentment toward a Latino person who hates Indians than toward a white person who hates Indians, for instance. I may try to be more forgiving toward the Latino person because of that 'unity through struggle' principle, but my visceral reaction is still the same. I think that acting like only whites are capable of racism trivializes brown-on-brown violence--but I do think it is important to recognize that it is a white-ruled system that brings about this type of violence anyway (e.g. the black-Latino gang violence in L.A.)
I don't feel any less resentment toward a Latino person who hates Indians than toward a white person who hates Indians, for instance.
Sure, and you shouldn't. Just the same as you shouldn't forgive an indie blog making a factual error, as much as you'd not forgive Fox News. However, which entity has more power, breadth and reach to control public perception? And which has more of a legacy of making those types of errors? These things must always be understood in that context.
whites don't have a white identity in the US anymore. that's white privilege
whites have you Manju. Can't think of anything more privileged than that.
oh damn I feel stupid. It's "Everyone's a little bit racist," not 'everybody,' I think.
HMF- I think it's also particular to communities though. Of course in most communities in the U.S. white people have the power, but in a few places they're not. It also depends on how small of community you're talking about. e.g. in my high school, Jews were dominant and I felt very, very uncomfortable with the constant talk about being 'the chosen people,' or when teachers assumed we knew the Old Testament. But in most of America, Jews still aren't 'real' white people (right?).
...or an ivy league MD.
if you believe that it is inappropriate to consider every south asian a terrorist or every black a criminal unless proven otherwise, i think you should consider it inappropriate to treat every white as a racist unless proven otherwise.
can you substantiate this claim. i'm actually open to it. i don't think all cultures are equal, some are more bigoted and ethnocentric than others (with america being among the most open), though bigotry is universal to the human condition. whites have, until recently, been more powerful than others...but where is the data that they are more prejudicial?
I was going to make the same point. But, the rules change somewhat depending on whether the factual error was against someone else (not me), or towards me (e.g. slandering me). In the latter case when I am the victim, it probably wouldn't matter much to me if it's Fox news or an indie blog - I'm more likely to feel the same anger, and the analysis of impact is more likely to get thrown out of the window.
in the latter case when I am the victim, it probably wouldn't matter much to me if it's Fox news or an indie blog
I understand this, which is why I said neither should be forgiven from that POV. However, you have to understand it in the context of these larger principles.
if you believe that it is inappropriate to consider every south asian a terrorist or every black a criminal unless proven otherwise, i think you should consider it inappropriate to treat every white as a racist unless proven otherwise.
whether I think it's appropriate or inappropriate isn't the question. The point is, we shouldn't (as a society, as a national consciousness) accept the former, but cry foul when the mere suggestion is made of the latter (especially when, in my view there is more data & evidence that proves the latter)
i don't think all cultures are equal, some are more bigoted and ethnocentric than others (with america being among the most open),
I don't think its correct to state "americans are more open" because American, as a culture, as a "people" are not very well defined in and of themselves, then they are simply "open" by definition (or lack thereof). A truly "open" culture would be constituted by a well defined culture that has exhibited "openness" to others.
If you argue that Americans are "defined" well, then it's obvious what that definition is, given the history of this country: white, anglo saxon. And if you claimthey are the most open, then you might as well take out a 5 week reservation in Bellvue's medical ward.
you earlier said "Why bend over backwards to make sure the poor white folk aren't misunderstood?". a very reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you believe that the appropriate response is to always shift burden of proof on to the "poor white folk". this is what i was taking issue with.
By "white folk", do you mean Iranians?
If thats the case, then by all means, please bend over backwards for me...
"you earlier said "Why bend over backwards to make sure the poor white folk aren't misunderstood?". a very reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you believe that the appropriate response is to always shift burden of proof on to the "poor white folk""
If you read the statement preceeding that, you'll see I make references to the other "race issues" or hurdles that us/black folks/asian folks/etc.. must endure, and that from a practical (I guess a "racism will always exist at some level" point of view) if we as a society accept those, then why should we clamor to the top of the mountain when similar hurdles exist for whites (again, in my view, they are more justified given historical evidence) ? It's the relative difference that I'm pointing out, that you seem to not take notice of or just don't believe. which again, is clear evidence of WP.
we need to be careful not to appropriate the victimization and history of blacks in this country. i don't know if being beaten up by a bunch of Latinos or blacks is any different than being beaten up by a bunch of whites, since in neither case is there really a "legacy of supremacy." in the context of british/indian relations i can see it, but america is different.
context matters. the man who is most often called a modern-day white supremacist, charles murray, is technically a yellow supremacist. the pacific rim and china have surpassed much of europe economically by many metrics (as well as having their own legacy of ethnic supremacy) and india may be next. the stereotype of indians and asians in this country is still that of a highly-educated professional as opposed to a terrorist.
of course, it is also a bit bizaare to be talking about indian racism against blacks in the context of elderly indians getting beaten up by a group of black teenagers. but i guess that's something else we have in common with jews.
but nobody here accepted those stereotypes. you are the only one who offered a justification for accepting stereotypes, albeit only for whites.
i think razib has it right:
and i will go further in saying those who are incapable of criticizing POC while holding whites to higher standards, are perpetuating white power as well as a patronizing form of racism.
HMF: I think you might be discounting the power dynamic of xenophobia. There