Lets see, I guess he will get away with it. Hindus are not that a big group in the USA. The decent thing would be to say sorry.

not all religions are baked equal in public discourse. hindus are likely numerous enough that they'll get the de facto protection from ridicule which xtians, jews and muslims have after the appropriate censure (remember "the simpons" where they cut to apu with a stature of shiva and labeled his religion "Other" after he explained hindu and there were 800 billion of them?).

not to make this political, but i get a little tired of people like nicholas kristof saying it wouldn't matter if someone was muslim. after all, they (liberals) regularly think that the religion of christian conservative politicians is something that is of note (or bush's affiliation with evangelical christianity). criticizing the religious sentiments of presidential candidates is old hat, thomas jefferson got accused of being anti-christian during the 1800 election (ironic seeing that his opponent was a unitarian, john adams), and it was certainly true that he nothing but contempt for orthodox christianity most of his life (personal correspondence suggests he mellowed a bit during his last years). religion is off bounds only if it is hermetically sealed off from the implications in regards to public policy.

p.s. one thing that irritates me about ibish, who is an admitted agnostic whose secular credentials christopher hitchens has attested to, is that after 9/11 he regularly conflated islam with arabs. the majority of arab americans are still christian, and the majority of american muslims are still non-arab. these distinctions are ones which the public often forgets or is unaware of, and it's irritating which identity activists consciously reinforce them for short term tactical purposes.

This porcine publicity hound has been blabbering his Bbs on the airwaves for a number of years. He gets a free pass for most of his idiotic statements because he's apparently fighting against "Islamophobia".

wow, talk about hidden stereotypes

I love you Anna :)

How exactly is it offensive? He said a secret Hindu OR when giving an example. How exactly is he tying Hindus and child molestors together?

This is really ridiculous, he never meant that, he just thought of a religion and a heinous act to make an example, so what if he picked Hindu by chance? Ann, you sound kinda like those radical Hindus that burn hearts on valentine's day in India.

This guy is an agnostic Arab (major props), I doubt he was being cynical.

greg, i don't think it is clear that it is an exclusive disjunction. it could be an inclusive disjunction, where one or more is true. i'm sure hussein ibish doesn't harbor particular prejudices against hinduism, but

1) he's a representative of an identity politics organization whose brief includes holding people to rather high standards of clarity on issues relating to defamation. substitute in other terms (e.g., "muslim or child molester") and no doubt he'd be up in arms. so perhaps it behooves his conscious to be raised a bit?

2) my personal experience is that most non-americans perceive hinduism to be kind of a joke-religion. i'll give you an example. since i look hindu my evangelical xtian friends in high school would make fun of hinduism after hearing about its pagan idolatry in church. one of them was talking about how ludicrous the whole idea of gods in human form was until i turned it around and pointed out the incarnation of jesus, at which point he got really mad at the analogy. i think, from an atheist perspective there's plenty of jokes one can make about almost any religion, but in any given society there are boundaries drawn on which religions are fair game to critique. hindus aren't quite within that circle yet, though muslims are coming close to being within it (partly because the abrahamic roots means that the semantics are easily to translate).

(the process occurring with muslims, and going to occur with hindus i would think, isn't new. catholicism was only mainstreamed in the decades after world war i, and judaism after world war ii. 19th century america was proudly and contemptuously protestant nation where trashy "exposes" of sexual debauchery in nunneries were bestsellers)

non-americans

speaking of logic. somehow the negation got in here. meant americans.

But if he were a Muslim he'd be double lucky.

We are really taking this religious "tolerance" thing too far. If Obama wants to be president, why can't he change his name to something decent and respectable like Harry or George or John?

“If someone says…that you…are a secret Hindu or perhaps a child molestor…are we to take that as…”

And even if we do want to be tolerant, it is one thing to be accepting of people of a book with Judeo-Christian antecedents as Ibish suggests. But clearly, as Ibish implies, pagans who find solace in strange gods with blue faces and 8 arms should have their names and photographs plastered all over the neighborhood so that people in the vicinity can ostracize or save them.

If this situation weren’t egregious enough, this paragon of E.D.

Paragon of E.D? Maybe my brain just went limp, but I can't figure out what this means.

it is one thing to be accepting of people of a book with Judeo-Christian antecedents as Ibish suggests.

it is interesting when muslims, jews and christians assert "after all we all worship the same god" that the assertion of inclusion bounded by these parameters implicitly excludes those outside of the circle of the one-true-god. when you tunnel down to fine grained language analysis in an environment of pluralism you open a pandora's box of deconstructionist possibilities ;-)

Paragon of E.D? Maybe my brain just went limp, but I can't figure out what this means.

Don't worry, Manju, you might get lucky in the next 72 hours.

By child molester, did he mean "atheist"?

Yes, there is a problem here.

He was talking a "secret or perhaps, a child molester". The context jocularly put forth by Colbert was that being a secret Muslim was bad. And his reply that a secret Hindu or perhaps something equally bad, like a child molester is clearly wrong. No matter how he finishes that sentence, the implication seemed to be that child molesters have a right to secrecy? Even if he didn't imply that, he surely mentioned them together.

If he had said, 'a secret Hindu or a secret atheist even, or something benign, its not a big deal.

I personally don't find it offensive, but its surely wrong.

mebee he was stressed cuz of a sugar low? ;-)

btw, re: religious test. of course the founding fathers put that in there specifically so that there wouldn't be a bar based on religion for federal positions. those bars did exist at the state level and thanks to the force of personality of men like james madison a block was prevented from pushing that up to a higher governmental level (these bars were the norm in western culture at that point in history). but, that doesn't mean that the religious views of elected officials weren't of interest or off limits, as i note above. a lot of the talk during the romney campaign was pretty ahistorical, and drew upon the most unreflective aspects of the amerikan cult of tolerance. during the 1960 election kennedy was asked about his catholicism; today we see this as pure bigotry. but this was before vatican ii. for decades there had been battles within the church attempting to force it into a public reconciliation with modern liberal democracy (one faction were 'americanists' based in these shores, but there were also pro-republican french liberal catholics on the other side of the atlantic). this was the historical context of the time, and though bigotry was surely the primary reason for critiquing kennedy's religion, but that paranoia was based on the true anti-liberal streak in the church hierarchy (that tendency of course derived from historically contingent conditions, such as the rise of anti-clericalism within liberal nationalist movements and the destruction of the temporal powers of the papacy under the direction of early liberals).

so to islam, i think it is important for muslim elected officials to make clear which side they are on in regards to the pluralism question within the muslim world. in many muslim nation-states there are still death penalties for conversion to other religions and apostasy (even if they are rarely enforced). a substantial minority of muslims in european nations like britain agree with these laws. i doubt any elected muslim official in the west would be on the side of the anti-pluralists, being religious minorities themselves, e.g., keith ellison. but i think airing these issues might do some good in tilting the balance toward the pluralists by putting prominent muslims on the record.

2 · razib said

p.s. one thing that irritates me about ibish, who is an admitted agnostic whose secular credentials christopher hitchens has attested to, is that after 9/11 he regularly conflated islam with arabs. the majority of arab americans are still christian, and the majority of american muslims are still non-arab. these distinctions are ones which the public often forgets or is unaware of, and it's irritating which identity activists consciously reinforce them for short term tactical purposes.

According to Wikipedia, Ibish is not even an Arab, but a Kurd. This makes his conflation of Islam with Arab even more strange.

so to islam, i think it is important for muslim elected officials to make clear which side they are on in regards to the pluralism question within the muslim world.

So if you are a REAL American, we can safely assume that they are against the death penalty for converts. But if you're a Muslim-American, no matter where you are born and where you grow up and what values you hold, your default position is "conversion = death penalty"?

a substantial minority of muslims in european nations like britain agree with these laws.
Yeah, a substantial minority of white people in America believe all brown people should be shot or deported. Are we going to ask every white politician "And excuse me sir, are you pro-death for non-white people?"

21 · urooj said

So if you are a REAL American, we can safely assume that they are against the death penalty for converts. But if you're a Muslim-American, no matter where you are born and where you grow up and what values you hold, your default position is "conversion = death penalty"?

Its generally agreed that Islam law states that apostates deserve death. If you describe yourself as a follower of Islam why shouldn't people wonder if you happen to subscribe to this Islamic law?

Yes, Jewish law states that the punishment for breaking the Sabbath is death by stoning. So should we ask all Orthodox Jews if they believe we should stone people who break the Sabbath? No, because we don't treat Judaism or Jews as a monolith, and we don't assume to know their texts, their practices better then they do. Yet somehow, it's okay to treat Islam that way? Islam is a religion with over a billion followers, spanning dozens, if not hundreds, of cultures and countries, do you really think it means the same thing for everyone? Islam is not a monolith, Muslims are not a monolith. Islamic law has thousands of intricacies and complexities that cannot be reduced to something as simple as "all Muslims believe apostates should be killed." To do so is incredibly orientalist, and privileges a Western discourse which reduces an incredibly diverse and complex system of thought into something black and white.

And why should a Muslim born, raised, and running for office in Michigan have to answer to what some Muslims in Saudi are doing? What ties does she have to them? Just because they are both Muslims, they must think the same, act the same, be the same? Again, this is an incredibly problematic and Orientalist assumption, and smacks of "Prove to me that you're not a terrorist" talk.

11 · Rahul said

We are really taking this religious "tolerance" thing too far. If Obama wants to be president, why can't he change his name to something decent and respectable like Harry or George or John?

I like Spiro.

23 · urooj said

Yes, Jewish law states that the punishment for breaking the Sabbath is death by stoning.

That's a misinterpretation. If you read it in the original hebrew its clear that the law states if you get stoned you might break the Sabbath. I think its in the Book of Munchies.

But if you're a Muslim-American, no matter where you are born and where you grow up and what values you hold, your default position is "conversion = death penalty"?

uh. no. islam doesn't encourage repackaging the words of kufars to make one's rhetorical position easier, does it? it isn't the default position, but it's the majority position of muslims today.

Yeah, a substantial minority of white people in America believe all brown people should be shot or deported. Are we going to ask every white politician "And excuse me sir, are you pro-death for non-white people?"

look, here are the numbers for britain:
A poll of more than 1,000 British Muslims, conducted by the Policy Exchange think-tank this year, found that 36 per cent of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death.

i really doubt you'd get such common sentiments re: shooting or deporting "brown people" (hey, you know that not all muslims are brown, and not all brown people are muslim, but here's a situation where conflating really muddies the issue more appropriately for argumentation).

muslims regularly talk about stuff like the ummah and brotherhood and all that. i'm really tired of muslims objecting to generalizations of muslims as a whole when they have no problems with asserting identification in other contexts (e.g., "our muslim brothers in palestine...."). if you're not your brother's keeper in any way stop talking about brotherhood.

the cultural conflict between co-religionists is not limited to islam. note the disagreement re: homosexuality within the anglican communion. some of the "liberals" in the anglican episcopate like john shelby spong have let pretty strongly implied that the rhetoric of african bishops toward homosexuals is just plain primitive and un-christian (i think the world he used was "animist"), and it looks like schism might occur over this issue.

this sort of general problem of identification is one we've gone over on SM and opinions differ. i've stated that if you claim to be a "proud X" you better own up to the negative baggage that comes with "X." i.e., if i'm a proud american i better be ashamed about jim crow because that's part of america too. well, if you are a identifying as a muslim, well there's a lot of awesome culture to go along with that, but the islamic world also has a lot of stuff f*ked up with it.

if mitt romney was going to be nominated as president someone better have asked him about his stance during the period when his church basically assumed that black africans were lesser humans (since they were excluded from the priesthood they had no shot at the highest heaven). that doesn't mean that mormons believe that now, or that mitt romney believed that then, but if he is proud of his church well that's part of the history of his church.

Yeah, a substantial minority of white people in America believe all brown people should be shot or deported. Are we going to ask every white politician "And excuse me sir, are you pro-death for non-white people?"

That could be fun and informative :)

If you read it in the original hebrew its clear that the law states if you get stoned you might break the Sabbath. I think its in the Book of Munchies.

Manju..... :)

Islamic law has thousands of intricacies and complexities that cannot be reduced to something as simple as "all Muslims believe apostates should be killed." To do so is incredibly orientalist, and privileges a Western discourse which reduces an incredibly diverse and complex system of thought into something black and white.

? look. this stuff about discourse and orientalism is all well and good, but i never said "all Muslims believe apostates should be killed." you even put quotes there as if i'd said it. LOL. look at it this way, if was in gujarat in early 2002 the fact that i'm an atheist wouldn't matter to the thugs who were killing muslims. i would be a muslim to them, just as i am to a minority of SM readers who accuse me of mocking hinduism because i'm a secret muslim (i do think the hindu religion is pretty ridiculous, but i think that of every religion...). that doesn't mean i think all hindus are like that, they aren't, but there's a situation for everything (though most hindus i meet, even ABDs who aren't religious, have a hard time breaking out of the idea you are born into a religion just like jews do, though xtians, especially evangelical christians, generally "get" that i'm not a muslim pretty quickly). similarly, if i mocked islam in public and declared my apostasy in most of the muslim world i'd be in trouble. i might start a riot and a lawyer might have to declare me mentally ill so as to placate public sentiment. this doesn't mean that all muslims go insane when their religion is mocked or people declare their apostasy, but a huge number do go nuts so that people need to modify their behavior appropriately.

so yeah, i would be curious as to the thought of a muslim elected official on these issues in the west because the majority of muslims do not live in the west and my belief is that many young american muslims are influenced by what goes on in majority-muslim countries. i would want to ask specific questions re: apostasy and pluralism, mostly to get it on the record and shift the central tendency if possible, just like i think it was good when people challenged mormons before 1978 on their church's position vis-a-vis blacks in the priesthood. catholics and jews in the united states had to adopt and were challenged during the 19th and first half of the 20th century when most of their co-religionists lived in regions or lifestyles which were simply not in keeping with liberal democratic principles (it is recorded that many rabbis in central europe objected to the liberation of jews in the 19th century specifically because they feared, rightly, assimilation to the gentile culture of those jews who had previously been under their legal jurisdiction).

re: orthodox judaism, remember that practice is strongly filtered through the commentaries within the talmud. so quoting from the hebrew bible can be problematic (there are usually "work arounds" for many practices, and more broadly gentiles are subject only to the noahide laws, not the 612 commandments on jews). similarly there is a debate within islam about apostasy based on appeal to interpretations of texts or selections of hadiths. obviously i want the less savage side on this question to win out, but the do-not-kill-the-apostates is definitely starting in the minority position from everything i read.

According to Wikipedia, Ibish is not even an Arab, but a Kurd. This makes his conflation of Islam with Arab even more strange.

1) yeah, but he works for that arab-american group. that's what i recall him working for in the early 2000s. so no matter his own ethnic identity, he would be shilling for their talking points.

2) he was born in beruit. i think there's a lot of debate about "arab" identity in that region, and even if he had kurdish ancestry he might still identify as arab. i know that traditionally many more lebanese who are greek orthodox identify as arab than those who are maronite christian, even though both groups are arabic speaking.

Annachech, you are capital.

catholicism was only mainstreamed in the decades after world war i, and judaism after world war ii.

Yes, it's rather weird that Judaism was mainstreamed so quickly after WW2, given that the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor were Jewish.

What? You don't believe me? Then why did they choose "Torah! Torah! Torah!" as a signal? See? The Tiger can't change his shorts.

The Colbert show guest segments are not to be taken seriously. Regular viewers will know that Colbert is portraying a stereotypical TV pundit (largely inspired by Bill O'reily).

The lines:
“I find it offensive, that you are implying that all Hindus are child molestors. Your words, Sir. Your words.” is a pretty standard line in his interviews. The mode of taking the guests comments and giving it an insidious twist for laughs.

I had never heard of the Sepia Mutiny until today, but live and learn. I am glad at least some people on this blog understand that it was Colbert (or rather his obnoxious and militantly illogical character) who made the equation, not I. To those who are offended, perhaps you should consider the meanings of the words “or” and ”perhaps” and the connotation of the phrase ”or perhaps” which in English draws a clear distinction between the two examples of false allegations people might make that I was citing. The structure of the sentence is to raise the stakes within it, that is to move from a benign false claim ”secret Hindu" to a malign false claim ”child molester." In no serious reading or interpretation of my words could I possibly be found to be making any comparison between the two, much less a ”metaphor," an error made by at least one person on this blog. If you want to be offended, I can't help you, but if you simply were to apply the essential rules of the English language and the structure of sentences you will instantly see that I made no such equation. Colbert did, as a joke, in the manner of his character whose stock in trade is inanity and foolish misinterpretation of everything that comes his way.

We are really taking this religious "tolerance" thing too far. If Obama wants to be president, why can't he change his name to something decent and respectable like Harry or George or John?

What does child molesting have to do with the name thing anyway. it makes no sense. He could have given an example of another religion. It is being offensive slyly which unfortunately is the practice in the new millennium. I’m with anna J “Shame on Him”.

Does pedantic condescension deliver favorable results in your line of work Mr. Ibish?

While, I am not offended.. I find it curious to see the placement of Hindus next to child molester, pyschologically speaking. Perhaps it is just random, but considering brain does work off patterns, there might be something here. I think his brain was thinking of using some religion as example, hence came Hindu... next came child molester, off the Catholic priest thingie, and the two were juxtaposed...
Enough of this amateur psychology... anyway , I don't think its a big deal. Hinduism might be funny to some, but at least all agree its harmless.

36 · rudie c said

He could have given an example of another religion.

You don't mean:
“If someone says…that you…are a secret Jew or perhaps a child molestor…are we to take that as…”

Now that would have brought Mr. Ibish's talking-head career to a sudden demise. He lucked out by using a religion that is still in its infancy political muscle-vise in the US.

so to islam, i think it is important for muslim elected officials to make clear which side they are on in regards to the pluralism question within the muslim world.

In some ways asking this question is useless because there is only one answer that doesn't amount to political suicide. But why is it important anyway ? I would think religion would be a much bigger part of a muslim politician's identity than that of a Christian or Hindu politician. Islam doesn't really work with separation of church-and-state and that is part of what leads to all the radicalism and non-pluralistic societies in the Islamic world (arab or non-arab). So why doesn't it make sense for voters to question a Muslim politician's stand on some issues a lot more than other candidates ?

could this be any more boring?

maybe we could talk about identity politics next?

Anyone not wanna be a doctor?

Anyone having problems with their parents and dating?

Anyone offended by anything lately?

YAAAAAAAAAWN. this site has jumped the shark, pony, pit bull and turtle

Not Hindu myself but that's a terrible pair of analogies. "If someone says you are a secret Hindu or perhaps a child molester, are we to take them at their word?" That isn't literally equating Hindus with child molesters, but to me it does imply that a person would be equally offended or horrified by either accusation. And that is a pretty nasty statement about Hinduism.

In that video clip Ibish just did not express clearly at all that he intended one false claim as benign and one as malignant - or whether he regarded both as equally malignant. I was ready to give some benefit of the doubt in terms of it being a heated conversation, Colbert doesn't make it easy to get a word in edgewise, etc. and maybe Ibish just didn't have the time to draw that distinction properly, but - I guess if the response is basically "learn English" that tells you all you need to know.

I did not find it offensive when I saw it. It is possible he meant it subconsiously as a derogatory thing. But I am not sure enough to worry about it. It is a non issue in my opinion.

Don't know what my words are worth, although I didn't watch the video, I find the quote offensive. What an ass.

It was a poor choice of words, but I doubt that any perceived connection between "Hindu" and "child molestor" was intentional, and unless Mr. Ibish has made it a habit to malign Hindus, I really think it's a non-issue.

Let's file this with the Michael Moore "Gooopta" post.

Nan English thappuillama pesuvan...yin fact, Thalaivar-sonnamadrey, "I can talk English, walk English, laugh English".

34 · Hussein Ibish said

I had never heard of the Sepia Mutiny until today, but live and learn. I am glad at least some people on this blog understand that it was Colbert (or rather his obnoxious and militantly illogical character) who made the equation, not I. To those who are offended, perhaps you should consider the meanings of the words “or” and ”perhaps” and the connotation of the phrase ”or perhaps” which in English draws a clear distinction between the two examples of false allegations people might make that I was citing. The structure of the sentence is to raise the stakes within it, that is to move from a benign false claim ”secret Hindu" to a malign false claim ”child molester." In no serious reading or interpretation of my words could I possibly be found to be making any comparison between the two, much less a ”metaphor," an error made by at least one person on this blog. If you want to be offended, I can't help you, but if you simply were to apply the essential rules of the English language and the structure of sentences you will instantly see that I made no such equation. Colbert did, as a joke, in the manner of his character whose stock in trade is inanity and foolish misinterpretation of everything that comes his way.

While you demonstrate a firm grasp of the English language and the construction of clauses, you seem to fail to grasph the higher order concept of connotation. It's not just what's being said (the construction of the phrase you thoroughly deconstructed), but how it is being said that's also important. At the very least you should be able to understand the placement of Hindus in the vicinity of child molestors is unfortunate.

They've yanked the video looks like. I can't see it. Damn!

To be clear- I was offended because:

1) As Razib articulately said upthread, people like Ibish are held to a higher standard, especially because they demand sensitivity from everyone else. It's hypocritical to take people to task for their ignorance and then be so reckless with one's own words. Make no mistake-- if I had said something similar in a blog post, I'd have my kundi handed to me by you readers, and for very good reason; it would be unacceptable for me to state something as unfortunate as what Ibish did, given my history at SM. I have to take great care with my words, lest I see, "Anna of Sepia Mutiny made an unfortunate remark...", and I'm not even 1/100th as important as Ibish is!

2) I was angry that he chose to use Hinduism in his awful counter-example. Would he have dared say Jew? No. If someone said something similar about Muslims, they'd automatically be seen as an ignorant, biased asshole. But drop "Hinduism" in the mix and it's all good, because Hindus don't matter, they're available for such disrespectful purposes. So what if that's a shitty thing to do? It's not like there will be consequences for such a poor choice of words.

3) No, he was not saying that one was exactly the same as the other, but I think enough people heard what I did, because they are nonplussed, too. It was not his finest moment, considering he is a crusader for equality and respect.

I continue to be disappointed; it's very easy to leave a patronizing comment which archly bludgeons us about the head with the opinion that I am illiterate, it is difficult to react with grace and say, "that's not what I meant, but it's terrible it might have sounded that way."

39 · Gruhasthu said

36 · rudie c said

He could have given an example of another religion.

You don't mean:
“If someone says…that you…are a secret Jew or perhaps a child molestor…are we to take that as…”

Now that would have brought Mr. Ibish's talking-head career to a sudden demise. He lucked out by using a religion that is still in its infancy political muscle-vise in the US.

i mean, "if someone says that you are a secret hindu or perhaps a Jew....are we to take that as"

see i don't understand how child molestor would come into the topic. people can "or perhaps" on anything.

"and I'm not even 1/100th as important as Ibish is!"

You’re a million times more important.

A Million and one, Hindu Styly

I think you guys are over reacting a tad. I don't believe that in anyway was his insinuation.

yes, it was not his finest moment. but come on, these things happen in the blink of an eye and when its on tv the stakes are artificially high -- and colbert did twist that sentence around. hussein ibish is a decent chap, a gentleman who would never soil hindu's on purpose. i was fortunate to have spent many, many hours with him during my undegrad years and i may have learned more about injustice in the world from him and his cohorts than from my professors. let's not vilify an incredibly hard-working, erudite man who has made it his life's mission to fight racism and discrimination. this man does not need approval ratings to keep his job.

You also need to take it in context of the general muslim (the region that extends from Pakistan to Morocco) and middle east view of Indians. They look down on Indians. And they hate the religion. Like that Iranian guy who the other day laughed--c'mon how can god have ten arms. So I think it was easy for Ibish to juxtapose Hindu with child molester. There is no easy way to spin this. We all know English quite well. I'm with Anna.

Can someone please reproduce the rest of the sentence/exchange and/or directly link the transcript? Because I can't see the clip either, and would like to know where he was going with that sentence.

I'm surprized that even Ibish, in his own defence upthread, would stick to grammatical rules, instead of providing some additional context.

I doubt this would have passed muster - "Suppose I accuse you of being a secret Jew or a loan shark."

What if someone else said the same thing but replaced hindu with muslim.

There a good chance that right now there would be riots all over the world, and the person who said this would have some muslim leader, who would be telling his followers to kill him.

I disagree Anna. It was very clear to me that Ibish was not linking Hinduism (A) and child molestation (B) in the Colbert clip. And, Razib, I don't see how the distinction between the exclusive .vs. inclusive disjunction is relevant. Neither of those forms implies that A=B. Maybe some people use the word "or" differently than I do. And even if Ibish's comment on this thread was not apologetic and was a little condescending (but can you blame him when responding to a post with an accusatory title with his name in it?), it was a very clear explanation of what he meant. I suspect that the vast majority of Colbert show viewers did not infer that he meant A=B.

If there was an existing smear that linked hindus to c-m's there might be something to be offended about. But since there isn't I don't think there's anything to worry about.

60 · ashvin said

And even if
Ibish's comment on this thread was not apologetic and was a little
condescending (but can you blame him when responding to a post with an
accusatory title with his name in it?), it was a very clear explanation
of what he meant.

Oh, I think you can blame him... That sort of condescension is not a necessary response to such an accusation, nor is it common in my experience. While I am not particularly upset about his remarks on the Colbert Report, I must admit his post here was lacking in the tact and grace departments.

No big deal! That guy, who wrote "Gang Leader For a Day" was on the same show and I think he is Hindu and I think if a he did find something offensive about it he would of spoken about it with this guy by now.

Anyway, has anyone notice that there seem's to be at least 1 Indian a week on "The Colbert Show"?

Correction: "The Colbert Report"

If Ibish had told Colbert 'you are a secret child molester' - how would that pan out. In any case 'much ado about nothing'.

Here is a funny ass interview with author Shashi Tharoor on "The Colbert Report"

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=162606

I had never heard of the Sepia Mutiny until today, but live and learn.

Mr. Ibish, I am glad the vanity alert of your name on Google Alerts worked. And thank you for your kind lesson in grammar and sentence parsing - the last refuge of the "sadly misunderstood".

As for the tortured hair splitting on incorrect inferences, I wonder where all that was on this interview where you go so far as to put yourself through an interaction with Michelle Malkin, and even manage to stay polite (something you seem unable to do here), while decrying the fact that some people might infer that some photos might have been taken purely because the subjects looked Muslim, when there was absolutely no implication of that kind by either the people who took the photograph or the FBI agency that released them, and that there should have been clarifications made to assure people that this wasn't the case.

And maybe you should stop to consider the question that multiple people have asked: would you have said "secret Jew" instead?

61 · ShallowThinker said

No big deal! That guy, who wrote "Gang Leader For a Day" was on the same show and I think he is Hindu and I think if a he did find something offensive about it he would of spoken about it with this guy by now.

That assumes Venkatesh identifies as a Hindu, was watching the telecast, or was paying attention during the statement. The gasps in the audience say enough, and had Ibish inserted any Abrahamic religion instead of Hindu, the consternation would have been greater. It may have been literally correct, but the placement conflates the two.

Ibish is a man who worries that people "look Muslim" in photographs used by the government in terrorism posters, a person who finds such things problematic needs to tread much more carefully when he speaks in the public sphere.

It may have been literally correct, but the placement conflates the two.

Further, the comment had been preceded by a discussion of the Kristof column making the point that whether Obama was a Muslim shouldn't matter in the least. In that context, I reall don't know what to make of a sentence that mentions being a secret Hindu and a child molester in the same breath. Or maybe Ibish is such an open-minded gentleman that he thinks the latter should not matter either.

46 · A N N A said

Nan English thappuillama pesuvan...yin fact, Thalaivar-sonnamadrey, "I can talk English, walk English, laugh English".

Anna, I know you have seen this video but for the sake of other esteemed, ignorant SM readers :)
Namak Halal: Amitabh Bachchan tries to talk English

67 · Rahul said

Or maybe Ibish is such an open-minded gentleman that he thinks the latter should not matter either.

Well then he's a hypocrite as he gives himself the benefit of the doubt that he denies the FBI in respect to their terrorism posters. What irks me most is a person in his position throwing out a sentence like that. If you're protecting a religion from defamation by going after all insults, obvious or not, why do this yourself?

much ado about a comedy central fake news/talk show segment ..

sheez ....

Razib: a few clarifications first:

1. (hey, you know that not all muslims are brown, and not all brown people are muslim, but here's a situation where conflating really muddies the issue more appropriately for argumentation).
No, of course not, I wasn't attempting to conflate the two when I made the comment about the politician, just illustrating that substantial minorities can have racist opinions.

2. Regarding the "all Muslims" comment, I was actually referring to JGhandi-- not that s/he actually said that verbatim, and I didn't mean to imply that with the quotes.

But in any case, I agree with you that it's important for Muslims to claim the negative baggage that comes with being Muslim today. I totally agree that we have a serious extremist problem within the community, and that it needs to be dealt with, that we need more moderate voices taking leadership roles. That's all well and good. But it becomes incredibly frustrating for those moderate voices when they constantly have to apologize or take responsibility for the extremists in their communities-- I don't think I have a responsibility to apologize to America for Osama bin Laden, and I find it offensive that people would assume I sympathize with any part of his (or other extremist) agendas.

Quoting a number about British-Muslims is really problematic, because again, you're assuming that Muslims are a monolith. The Muslim-British population has had a vastly different experience with the Western world then the Muslim-American population. Britain has had a serious and long-standing problems with racism against both Muslim communities. British-Muslim youth are more alienated, more frustrated, and much more detached from Britishhood then Muslim-Americans are from Americanhood. And I do take issue with your statement that American-Muslims are more influenced by Muslim-majority countries, I just don't think that's true. Perhaps first generation immigrants, but that's true for all first-generationers.

I also think it's kinda problematic to associate Muslims and Islam as only a religion of immigrants, especially since a) the whole fastest growing religion thing, and b) the most prominent Muslim-American politicians have been born and raised in America, ie. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson who won the special election in Indiana. Maybe I should suck it up and not be offended if people think they can reasonably assume I think converts should be killed, being an immigrant with my loyalties obviously ELSEWHERE, but people like Ellison?

P.S. I'm not saying you made that assumption, I'm talking generally.

Manju:
LOL.

Nan English thappuillama pesuvan...yin fact, Thalaivar-sonnamadrey, "I can talk English, walk English, laugh English".

Oh my God, ANNA. Can't believe you are quoting thalaivar!!!! Love that sentence you wrote! Next you will be singing petta-rap and dancing dappan koothu.

Next you will be singing petta-rap and dancing dappan koothu.

Wow...it seems we've finally crossed the line and see "the Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" as actual news now....and not the comedic displays of mockery that they are.....

Leaders and influential folks are always saying things they should not on those shows...some times on their own, other times after being "led" to a punch line by the hosts. What's more...the shows pick these "guests" for this type of effect.

Sure, they guy made some bad choices in what he said....but look at EVERYONE else those shows interview....as someone born and raised in the South, I've seen more than my share of biggoted, racist idiots, many from my home state, on those shows spouting the typical crap they always do...

Kudos to Anna for sticking up for Hindus, though!

Hindus rock!

74 · Pragathi said

The victim here is Hussein Ibish who is being made into a scapegoat by various interested parties.

Ibish has been Ferraro-ed!

Wow...it seems we've finally crossed the line and see "the Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" as actual news now....and not the comedic displays of mockery that they are.....

For quite a while now (at least since indecision 2000) "the Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" (which came much later) have done a much better job of presenting actual news than most "actual" news shows. The celebrity interviews are not fake -- the atmosphere is nonsensical, and so is the reaction of the hosts, but many of the questions are much more incisive than anything the celebrities face on most other shows.

.but look at EVERYONE else those shows interview..

74 · Pragathi said

You folks who have brittle skins should harden up. I mean seriously, it just looks to me as if Anna hashed together a lame case so as to claim "hey look! I *do* care about Hindus and all your criticism about me is wrong... I am not a Christian extremist; here's the proof!"

Methinks you need to audit yourself. Perhaps invite the IRS as well? Sambrani.

I think we can all surmise, using Ibish's methodology, that his being 'kind of an agnostic' should not be construed as cover for pederast advocacy but really as a sign of an ardent and rational reformer of Islam. It all makes sense. A thousand points of light coming together.

Just FYI. Here's my transcript of the exchange:
-----------------------------
Ibish : But listen I'm extremely grateful to Obama for kindo of cleaning up my name because for the past 10 years or 15 years it's been I have to explain my name is Hussein like "Saddam Hussein" and now I get to say my name is Hussein like Barack Obama.

SC: And I'm sure he thanks you for that.

Ibish: It's great. I truly appreciate it he's doing me a great service.

SC: Let me tell you why I think it shouldn't matter that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim.

Ibish: Which he isn't by the way.

SC: I'm hearing that he is lately.

Ibish: No he isn't actually. He says he's not, there's no reason to doubt it.

SC: Ok, I misspoke. "Secret Muslim"

Ibish: There's no reason to doubt it. I mean if someone says of you that you are a secret Hindu or, perhaps, a child molester are we to take this on face value ?

[crowd boos/cheers/laughs]

SC: Sir. no no no no. I'll take care of this one. I find it offensive that you are implying that all Hindus are child molesters.

Ibish: I'm not. Of course I'm not.

SC: You just did. Your words sir, your words sir.
-----------------------------

I don't mean to be dragging this out any longer. But it's just that I was so surprised to see so many of you (who I've come to think of as reasonable people) hear the same thing I was hearing and infer from it things that I find almost impossible to infer.

As a fairly faithful viewer of the Colbert Report, I see it as Colbert (the character) playing his usual comical, anti-logical, self. He draws absurd conclusions from his guests words all the time and it's hilarious. I thought the crowd was booing because Ibish was accusing the Colbert (the character) of being a c-m and not because they thought Ibish was linking hinduism and c-m.

Oh, and add this last line to the transcript :
"Ibish: Not at all. Not true at all."

So, for the record, as soon as Colbert makes the absurd allegation, Ibish clarifies it not once, but twice.

79 · ashvin said

As a fairly faithful viewer of the Colbert Report, I see it as Colbert (the character) playing his usual comical, anti-logical, self. He draws absurd conclusions from his guests words all the time and it's hilarious. I thought the crowd was booing because Ibish was accusing the Colbert (the character) of being a c-m and not because they thought Ibish was linking hinduism and c-m.

Thanks for the transcript. It's clear that Ibish meant no offense. There's certainly enough 'reasonable doubt' to acquit him.

ashvin @ 79,80 -- thanks. some of the most sensible people who write on these SM threads, whose comments i follow closely and almost always agree with, have been making peculiar and rather mean interpretations. and ultimately this is generating too much animosity and perpetuating the hate. now that in my book just aint cool. what's with this obsession of linguistically decoding a flash in the pan comment that just isn't all that incriminating?

It could have been just a simple Freudian Slip. An unscheduled interview on that Chris Hansen tv show maybe in his future. Now that would be worth watching.

Quoting a number about British-Muslims is really problematic, because again, you're assuming that Muslims are a monolith. The Muslim-British population has had a vastly different experience with the Western world then the Muslim-American population. Britain has had a serious and long-standing problems with racism against both Muslim communities. British-Muslim youth are more alienated, more frustrated, and much more detached from Britishhood then Muslim-Americans are from Americanhood.

I'm tired of this crap. Sikh's and hindu's are in England and they are not having problems that the muslims are having. Blowing things up and druging and raping 15year old girls seems to only be a problem among British muslims in the South Asian community.If England and these other European countries and there culture is so bad, they could alway move somewhere else.

Ashvin, many thanks for transcribing that exchange.

Although you (and Sandeep, Seahawks fan, Vikram, others) argue persuasively why this was 'just a slip' - that it's no big deal, etc (though if it were a 'Freudian' slip, Vikram, wouldn't that damn him even more?) - and although I often like to give people the benefit of doubt, in my overall take on this I agree with Anna.

The Colbert Show may be a high-pressure situation, but spokespersons and polemicists like Ibish ought to have their talking points, perhaps even soundbites, all ready to go, no extempore thinking and no Freudian slips. Anyone could anticipate that he would be asked about Osama and 'secret Muslim'. The answer should not have included any reference to a 'secret Other Religion' - that just opens a can of worms - no matter what other inclusive or exclusive disjunctions or parenthetical dilatory clauses follow. It should not have happened, so yes he embarrassed himself, and he gets no benefit of doubt.

But what I am really surprized by is his own post upthread in his defence. A simple apology, even if only admitting an unfortunate choice of words (which at the least it was) - was what was called for, but he offers a lesson in grammatical structure instead.

As a historical point of fact - accusations of being a 'secret Hindu' or 'secret Jew' have been made with extremely malign intent and horrible consequences (Goan Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition, etc). Therefore, saying that 'secret Hindu' is a 'benign false claim' (we would very much like it to be so) is profoundly ahistorical, a mistake that people working to counter present-day 'malign' false claims and prejudices should not have made.

don't mean to be dragging this out any longer. But it's just that I was so surprised to see so many of you (who I've come to think of as reasonable people) hear the same thing I was hearing and infer from it things that I find almost impossible to infer.

ashvin, I made my earlier comment, especially 12, as an exaggeration. However, I do think that Ibish, whose career apparently is about encouraging reasonable discourse and making sure Islam is not poorly perceived (look at the appearance I linked to which was all about the appearance of discrimination), throws in a sentence that was very poorly considered: it is less about the conflation to me, it is primarily about the implication that somehow the fact that somebody is a "secret Hindu" should be an issue (there is a lot of discourse in this country that advocates acceptance of the religions of the book, basically of the vein that people of all religions, be it Islam, Christianity, or Judaism should be accepted - you can do a scan of a variety of political speeches where you will see this: Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism etc. are rarely, if ever, mentioned) but additionally about the fact that he mentioned them together in a construction that is prone to misinterpretation (again, I think the questions multiple people raise about using the term "secret Jew" are relevant).

And to boot, the comment he left here (if it is indeed him) is truly ridiculous in its prickliness, umbrage, and linguistic condescension.

Thanks Seahawks fan, Sandeep, chachaji and Rahul. I agree with you Sandeep.

Btw, Vikram is on your side chachaji (check out his first comment for confirmation that his use of the word Freudian was intentional).

Well, if the issue at hand is now that he shouldn't have used "secret any-relgion" then I'm glad that we can agree that he was not maligning Hinduism by using the word child-molester in the same sentence.

I do grant you the point that hinduism is constantly left out of discussions about religion and that a hindu in america might feel like a second-class citizen for that reason. I have not lived as a hindu in america and i might not be as sensitive to that fact.

I don't really want to get into the whole "secret hindu" .vs. "secret Jew" thing (or less offensively "being secretly Jewish" perhaps?). And I'm sure Ibish doesn't either; the right wing loons give him a hard enough time already. All I'll say is that with the history of anti-semitism in this country and in the western world in general, it is understandable why "secret hindu" might be seen as a lot more benign than "being secretly jewish". If the Colbert report was based in Goa, the opposite would perhaps be true.

Peace.

though if it were a 'Freudian' slip, Vikram, wouldn't that damn him even more?

He's said a lot of damning things in the past and continues to thrive. Damnation is apparently only for those who cannot afford a good legal team.

People who do not watch the Colbert show and do not understand the premise of this Comedy Central show are barking up the wrong tree.

If you are a regular viewer or one familiar with the show will understand that guests are supposed to play along with the absurdities. (Read the transcript posted above to understand this)

Parsing the responses from these interviews is a waste of time and pointless ...

88 · Sadaiyappan said

I don't think hindhu child molesters exist -- hindhus are the most passive people on the planet..

Let's not even GO THERE

If you are a regular viewer or one familiar with the show will understand that guests are supposed to play along with the absurdities. (Read the transcript posted above to understand this)

I doubt Mr Ibish has ever watched the show prior to appearing on it. He doesn't exactly strike me as having a sense of humor having seen some of his other tv appearances. So I doubt he was "in" on Colbert's dry sense of humor, much less be smart enough to play along with it. He answered Colbert's just like he does any of his other interviews.

55 · my_dog_jagat said

You also need to take it in context of the general muslim (the region that extends from Pakistan to Morocco) and middle east view of Indians. They look down on Indians. And they hate the religion. Like that Iranian guy who the other day laughed--c'mon how can god have ten arms. So I think it was easy for Ibish to juxtapose Hindu with child molester. There is no easy way to spin this. We all know English quite well. I'm with Anna.

My dog jagat: I'm a Muslim and I'm INDIAN, from INDIA. And I'm tired of my fellow Hindu countrymen telling me that I'm not really Indian because I'm Muslim. And please learn some geography. The Muslim world extends from Morroco through south eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, east through Asia to Indonesia and Malaysia. Also, India is the third largest Muslim nation in terms of population. And as far as "the middle east view of Indians" -- to contrast to your anecdotal story, my husband is a white skinned Arab. I'm a fairly dark skinned Indian.

Did he deliberately say those words the way the mutinous horde's insist that he did? Elementary Watson, what would be his motive?

Okay, enough with the handle-switching on the same thread. "Agatha", as a regular, you should know better.

Sadaiyappan's trolling and a few other now-deleted gems (try and pick less disgusting handles, thanks) suggest that it's time to close this thread. Thank you to those who debated civilly and especially to Ashvin, whose comments were a model for how to make a point effectively and respectfully.