64 thoughts on “Press bias”

1. I sent an email to Charlene a few minutes ago.

2. Hmm, later on in the article she said what the ‘off-color’ statements were. Why didn’t she just avoid all this, and instead of saying the comments were off-color or racist, simply state what Sherrill said and let the reader decide how they felt about Sherrill’s words (which seem pretty racist to me). Journalists, what’s the playbook here?

3. This is off-topic, I’m posting here b/c I assume everyone agree’s this guy’s statements were offensive.

   Anyway, I have a question. I have had many South Asian- (but especially Indian-)-American friends over the years, and I am struck by how infrequently they give their kids American first names. I’m talking about people born and bred in the U.S. who in many cases have not spent more than a few weeks at a time in India every few years. This is in contrast to my East-Asian friends, virtually all of whom have American first names. Has anyone else noticed this? And I know the exception about Catholics from Goa, that’s not what I’m talking about.

   Discuss! Or ignore, at your leisure. I’m just curious what the reason for this might be.

4. complaining to the writer is a dead-end task with little impact for your effort. nothing comes out of it – she will not have the bandwidth to submit a rebuttal or an explanation.
   a better contact person would be an ombudsman for the newspaper. That person would be a better person to connect with on this matter
   such a person will do an independent assessment of the situation and publish an official opinion.
   a letter to the editor might be the next best option in that it would get you print access.
   finally … i respectfully submit that a superior alternative to relaying your umbrage in the hispanic/black context is expressing your personal fury at being considered a 9/11 bomber by virtue of your ethnicity. The worst criminal act, the abomination perpetrated on American soil … and this elected representative had the temerity to cast such a slur on me, my community… !!! Sherrill’s statements were fighting words bro’, and I find your response lacking – but I’ll leave it here – I can influence you as a fellow-sepiate – but leave it to you to take on your countrymen.

5. This is off-topic, I’m posting here

   BG, generally we frown upon such wildly off-topic comments. That is what separates SM from message boards that usually exhibit anarchy and are a waste of time.

6. This is in contrast to my East-Asian friends, virtually all of whom have American first names. Has anyone else noticed this? And I know the exception about Catholics from Goa, that’s not what I’m talking about.

   china names are often tonal in character and can not be pronounced correctly by non-chinese, even with great effort. east asians in eastern asia often have western alternate names that they use in international business. brown names are not tonal, just phonetically different.

7. reg #4 – OK … i re-read my confused stuff up there… that’s what comes out of multi-tasking
   My points –
   1. Send a note to the ombudsman
   2. Express why sherrill’s comment hurt so bad and why he cant get away with it
   

8. Dhaavak, the response is proportionate. Only the single phrase struck me, and it could have just been a slip on deadline, so a gentle reminder to the reporter herself is best here IMO.

   Sherrill, on the other hand, deserves whatever opprobrium he gets, but keep in mind it was a small local race.

9. brown names are not tonal…

   Punjabi is tonal.

10. many of the east asian’s who give their children “american” names have converted to christianity. Many of the Indians who don’t are either Hindu or Muslim and would likely want to retain their heritage. I know of very few buddhist east-asians who have given their kids “american” names.

11. Added the email addresses for the public editor and letters to the editor. FYI, the latter requires your phone number for verification.

12. BG,

    Just to clarify, what would constitute as an “American” name? Are we talking about the neo-colonial imposition of Judeo-Christian names as “American”, or are we talking about Native American names, which would be ACTUAL American names.

13. Punjabi is tonal.

    a lot of punjabis have shortened/western vesions of their names too

14. Pay attention to my name, for it shall be the new “John Smith”.

15. Sivaramana…

    LOL, ROTFL. You’ve put tears in my eyes.

16. a lot of punjabis have shortened/western versions of their names too

    Because they’re long, not because they’re tonal. Rabba bless every Punjab da Sher (Lion of Punjab) Captain Jasminderpreet Singh Randhawa…

    … nickname Twinkle 🙂

17. Manish, sent my emails. Sent it to a few friends too and asked them to do the same.

    Don Sherill should be flogged naked in public

18. John, Jane, Bob…that kind of thing!

19. Sorry if it is a little off topic but there was this interesting letter to the editor of the WSJ today.

    “Hindus in U.S. Exemplify Capitalism’s Basic Virtue”

    Direct link at http://online.wsj.com/opinion/letters?mod=2_0048

    Francis Fukuyama’s formulation of the fundamental criteria of citizenship in European nations — “blood, soil and ancient shared memory” — captures perfectly the fatal flaw at the heart of European multiculturalism, and reveals the hypocrisy of the European contempt for the American experience (“A Year of Living Dangerously,” editorial page, Nov. 2). Critically, what is missing from that formulation, and from Prof. Fukuyama’s prescription for cure, is the role of capitalism, and the worship of the almighty dollar.

    As Hayek and his disciples have pointed out, capitalism is the most democratic and virtuous of social systems: dollars are not black, white or red. And a society that accords social and cultural respect to those who succeed in the economic sphere is, by definition, more inclusive than one based on any other set of criteria.

    Let’s take a really (one would think) remote cultural group in America: Hindus. Something like 40% of hotel/motel properties in America are owned by Patels and their cousins. And they contribute to American society at every level: philanthropic, cultural and social — because of the respect they are accorded for their economic success. One generation: from immigrant to university donor and honoree.

    But societies that place economic success well below “blood, soil and ancient shared memory” in their pantheon of virtues are fated to spend eternity trying to square the circle: integrating those who do not share in those historical criteria, and never will.”

20. LetÂ’s call a spade a spade here.

    Are you sure you want to use the word “spade” in a letter protesting the Sentinel’s coverage of Sherrill’s remarks?

    (spade = racial insult directed at blacks)

    Or was that intentional… I’m curious!

21. (spade = racial insult directed at blacks)

    I’ve never heard of it, though it turns up on a list of ethnic slurs. How common is it?

22. 420 (India, Pakistan) A person acting fraudulently to cheat somebody out of their belongings; a confidence trickster. From Section 420 of the Penal Codes of both India and Pakistan covering such activity. The Penal Codes of both countries are inherited from the Indian Penal Code of 1860 instituted by the British rulers of the Indian Subcontinent, which then included the present-day countries of India and Pakistan. A popular 1955 Hindi film from India, Shri 420 (in English: Mr. 420) has a central character who, though innocent, is regarded by many as a con man, hence “Mr. 420”. Not to be confused with the association of ‘420’ with marijuana in the USA.

    We’ve got to use this more often, preferably punaciously conflating both the desi and American meanings.

23. spade = racial insult directed at blacks

    true. the only problem is that sometimes it seems that 1 out of 3 nouns in the english language has been used as an insult against blacks.

24. (spade = racial insult directed at blacks) I’ve never heard of it, though it turns up on a list of ethnic slurs. How common is it?

    It’s the first thing I thought when I read the letter. It made me laugh to think it was a tongue-in-cheek reference. (And I’m the person who asked an Italian friend what “wop” and “guinea” meant, and a Latino friend what “spic” meant, i.e. I’m generally clueless about slurs.)

25. true. the only problem is that sometimes it seems that 1 out of 3 nouns in the english language has been used as an insult against blacks.

    that is why in protest they got their own freakin’ language….EBONICS 🙂

26. But societies that place economic success well below “blood, soil and ancient shared memory” in their pantheon of virtues are fated to spend eternity trying to square the circle: integrating those who do not share in those historical criteria, and never will.”

    Damme straight! This is why whitening isnt necessary in the US. Too many are eager to pen the study How the Hindoos Became White Javed needn’t become Jim. There are plenty of Balasubramaniams who practice Hinduism, don’t touch beef or even meat, make a cool six figures and suffer no discrimination from their neighbors. They are–as much as any white guy–living the American dream.

27. “But societies that place economic success well below “blood, soil and ancient shared memory” in their pantheon of virtues are fated to spend eternity trying to square the circle: integrating those who do not share in those historical criteria, and never will.”

    Of course the price is lack of cultural depth. America has produced no Shakespeares, Mozart or Michelangelo.

28. Of course the price is lack of cultural depth. America has produced no Shakespeares, Mozart or Michelangelo.

    But we’ve produced Jhumpa Lahiri! 🙂

29. Of course the price is lack of cultural depth. America has produced no Shakespeares, Mozart or Michelangelo.

    We have a paradox, people. The one country suffering from a “lack of cultural depth” is the same country whose culture is most dominant and enjoyed around the world.

    Maybe Mark Twain, Bob Dylan, and Andy Warhol?

30. We have a paradox, people. The one country suffering from a “lack of cultural depth” is the same country whose culture is most dominant and enjoyed around the world.

    you are comparing apples to oranges. the impact of american culture is broad but shallow. the triplet you gave, Mark Twain, Bob Dylan, and Andy Warhol, are pathetic next to Shakespeare, Mozart or Michelangelo. and of course, it is important to decompose humanity between the conscious and the sheep. the sheep stuff their faces with mcdonald’s and watch hollywood blockbusters, but on a world-historical scale they are carbon-cycling epiphenomena. who remembers the wares of corinth next to the mind of athens and the spirit of sparta?

    and i speak as a mildly chauvanistic american who likes our mercentile republic just fine. but, i just don’t think we should delude ourselves as to the possibility of our lasting cultural impact.

31. you are comparing apples to oranges. the impact of american culture is broad but shallow. the triplet you gave, Mark Twain, Bob Dylan, and Andy Warhol, are pathetic next to Shakespeare, Mozart or Michelangelo. and of course, it is important to decompose humanity between the conscious and the sheep. the sheep stuff their faces with mcdonald’s and watch hollywood blockbusters, but on a world-historical scale they are carbon-cycling epiphenomena. who remembers the wares of corinth next to the mind of athens and the spirit of sparta?

    Ricardo Montalban remembers — “fine Corinthian leather”.

    Seriously, you may argue if you choose that America’s cultural impact has been shallow compared to, say, the Ancient Greeks or the British Empire, but Sal’s point above seemed to be that America pre-1965 (i.e. mostly homogenous with the exception of African-Americans and Native Americans) was lacking in cultural depth — no Shakespeares, Mozarts, or Michelangelos, he claimed — because it was not ethnically diverse. I don’t buy either half of the statement at all — sure Bob Dylan sounds lightweight next to Mozart, but that’s just a time thing — ask 100 American music experts to make a list of 10 contemporary US musicians people will still be listening to 200 years from now and not one would leave Dylan off the list –but the second half in particular does not follow.

    (Subtext of post: sniff, sniff — why y’all hatin’ on my ancestors? Ben Franklin wuz da bomb!! Dude invented tha CELL PHONE!!)

32. well BG, i tend to be a fan of WASP america myself, and yeah, there is a lot of hatin’ going on here. but that’s just the general culture being reflected as much as browno-chauvanism. anyway, i am a little confused though by your model, are you saying america was ethnically homogenous? after all, bob dylan is the descendent of russian jews. and ben franklin couldn’t shut the fuck up about those germans remember….

33. America has produced no Shakespeares, Mozart or Michelangelo.

    Sal: If the point is that American culture only has McDonalds and popular music to compete with Shakespeare, Mozart and Michelangelo, this is not fair. Over the last century and a half, not too many would disagree that the most influential and most critically acclaimed poets in the English language have come from the US; indeed some of these are among the canonical poets of the Western tradition: Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson in the 19th C, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, ee cummings, in the first half of the twentieth century, and Wallace Stevens, John Ashberry, James Merrill among lesser known poets over the last several decades. Among the novelists too the US has produced titans: Melville, Henry James, Faulkner, and in the last several decades Bellow, Roth, Pynchon and many many more. This literary tradition (even if we restrict ourselves to the 19th C) easily compares to that produced by other Western countries in the same period.

34. “he claimed — because it was not ethnically diverse”

    I did not imply the absence of ethnic diversity in America has resulted in the lack of cultural depth. Razib has eloquently said what I was trying to say.

35. UM, you aren’t going to win this argument. i doubt anyone here as read all the authors you listed above (hey, but mebee you are a philistine). and why put t.s. eliot on the list? he might have been a yankee from st. louis, but he died an englishmen at heart, didn’t he?

36. and let me be clear: the past is not the present. making equivalence between the cosmopolitanism of today, and say the 1850s when the irish were bring a jansenist catholicism and the germans were influencing the replacement of hard liquor with beer, is problematic for a variety of reasons. additionally, there is the relative vs. absolute difference. on a character-by-character assignment the germans and irish were/are clearly less alien to the WASP main stock of this nation than browns or latinos (for example). but, these sort of comparisons always need to be made in the context of outgroups and relative judgements, in other words, even if on an absolute scale the irish catholics were part of european civilization, the yankees of the period reacted hysterically against them as if they were total aliens. so their relative scale was different.

    anyway, i can’t get across what i’m trying to say in a short web comment, so i’ll let it go at that….

37. Razib — America certainly wasn’t homogenous in 1965 in the Japanese or Icelandic sense, though there was a sense (I understand) that the Melting Pot has worked its magic pretty well on the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. and was ready for new flesh.

    My quibble was with Sal’s post (#27) that appeared to blame what he termed America’s “lack of cultural depth” on its being until recent decades a type of European ethnostate (with internal squabbles, yes, but identifiably Christian and European). I was only saying that I don’t agree that a) America lacks cultural depth (propz 2 Umair) or b) homogenous ethnostate-hood causes lack of cultural depth.

38. “But societies that place economic success well below “blood, soil and ancient shared memory” in their pantheon of virtues are fated to spend eternity trying to square the circle: integrating those who do not share in those historical criteria, and never will.”

    Of course the price is lack of cultural depth. America has produced no Shakespeares, Mozart or Michelangelo.

    Sal — if that’s not what you were implying, then OK. I don’t see the other way to read the above — seems to be exactly what you’re saying — but I’ve read things wrong before.

39. though there was a sense (I understand) that the Melting Pot has worked its magic pretty well on the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. and was ready for new flesh.

    i think this is right to the first approximation. though note that interethnic marriage in 1965 was sharply delineated by religion (jews still had 95% inmarriage rates in 1965).

    and as for this: on its being until recent decades a type of European ethnostate

    well, if you are peter brimelow in disguise, i always have to bring up the fact that america was never a european ethnostate because of the black population, which was 20% at the founding. peter would stay, “well, they weren’t part of the political nation,” but even if you go back deep into the early 19th century you note that the discussion on this topic made the contention that we were a volkisch nation highly disputable (i’ve read a fair amount of the material from before 1860 now out of curiosity, and i was surprised by the variance in opinion, from normative racism all the way to ‘modern’ color-blindness).

40. Sal: If the point is that American culture only has McDonalds and popular music to compete with Shakespeare, Mozart and Michelangelo, this is not fair. Over the last century and a half, not too many would disagree that the most influential and most critically acclaimed poets in the English language have come from the US; indeed some of these are among the canonical poets of the Western tradition: Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson in the 19th C, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, ee cummings, in the first half of the twentieth century, and Wallace Stevens, John Ashberry, James Merrill among lesser known poets over the last several decades. Among the novelists too the US has produced titans: Melville, Henry James, Faulkner, and in the last several decades Bellow, Roth, Pynchon and many many more. This literary tradition (even if we restrict ourselves to the 19th C) easily compares to that produced by other Western countries in the same period.

    Lets not forget the Jazz titans: Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk et. al.–an art that owes its impetus to African American experience.

    I also agree that Whitman is as strong as any English poet since Wordsworth.( Though I gave up on Ashberry after “The Tennis Court Oath”.)

    There ha, however, been no Shakespeare or Michelangelo.

41. to be precise: the average american did conceive of this country as fundamentally before 1965. if you listen to FDRs radio speeches you hear stuff about how australia, a ‘white anglo-saxon nation like us’ was being attacked by the japanese, etc. etc. but the analogy to a european ethnostate doesn’t work because the correlation of characters in these states tended to be, ideally, far tighter than was the case in the united states. the USA was always in a confused greyland because of its black population, enormous size and frontier, and promiscuous ethnic and religious pluralism. the yankees lost control very soon. in contrast, the hugenots were absorbed in germany, local identities were crushed in france, etc.

42. i doubt anyone here as read all the authors you listed above

    Even if that’s true, that would be true for great French, Spanish, German, etc. authors too. My point is that the impact of American arts and letters is not as shallow as it might seem at first blush– granted 200 years later they won’t remember x music, but they’ll still be assigning Moby-Dick in schools (I first read it as a child in Dubai). TS Eliot and Henry James certainly died English at heart (I believe citizenship too), but they were born, raised, and educated in the US, and were products of the US.

    [The US example is not so different from the Roman one, in that the Romans were famous (and famously mocked) for having low-brow tastes. We kind of might be aware of this today, but it has no resonance– because all we remember Roman literature by is stuff like Virgil, Horace, Seneca, etc. [One might argue that even the “low brow” stuff has survived in some measure through transmission by works like the Satyricon)]…

    Are there any Shakespeares in my list of American authors? Of course not. But artists like Michelangelo and Mozart are rarities even among artists, and many Western countries, not just the US, are lacking if that is the yardstick. For instance, where is the French painter to rival the incredible profusion of Italian masters? Where is the French epic poet to rival Milton? Or the Italian novelist to rival Proust and Joyce?

    In terms of cultural impact (again speaking of poetry), poets like Walt Whitman have influenced generations of poets and writers even beyond the English Language (e.g. Neruda). In the process, there are some strange results too: while much of the American academy always used to turn its nose up at Edgar Allan Poe, the latter has had a remarkable afterlife in France over the last 150 or so years (Baudelair was, I believe, the first French translator of Poe, and was himself quite influenced by him).

43. UM, i think the roman analogy is apropos, i don’t think they really made much original contributions per capita to high culture. rome bequeathed a lot to the west, but it seems it was a shadow of the classical greeks when it comes to “culture.”

44. and to follow up on the roman model, i think the american contribution will be more in terms of systems, i.e., law, gov. etc. than specific aspects of cultural creativity.

45. Razib:

    well, if you are peter brimelow in disguise, i always have to bring up the fact that america was never a european ethnostate because of the black population, which was 20% at the founding.

    When are those figures from? I know that a little bit before independence, the south was over 50% black, but this declines by independence time, and I don’t know the total population balance at either period.

46. rome bequeathed a lot to the west, but it seems it was a shadow of the classical greeks when it comes to “culture.”

    Lucretius was without question the most influential poet for the Renaissance philosophes. The Enlightenment worldview owes much to modern European readings of specifically Latin texts–Lucretius, Epicurus, Livy (the historian) and many others.

47. 1790 census. and my calculations say it is 19.2%, but i gotta say, my memory rocks!

48. Lucretius was without question the most influential poet for the Renaissance philosophes. The Enlightenment worldview owes much to modern European readings of specifically Latin texts–Lucretius, Epicurus, Livy (the historian) and many others.

    do you disagree with my contention that in terms of “culture,” by which i mean the literary and visual arts specifically, the classical (and perhaps early hellenistic greeks) beat the romans hands down per capita? i would be willing to bet even on absolute terms they beat the shit out of them. remember also that during the roman empire the eastern half was greek speaking, so many of the intellectuals were still hellenes by origin, and if not, they used greek as the lingua franca quite often. look at church history, st. agustine and tertullian were the latins, but they focused on law, gov., and rhetoric. the greeks did the philosophical legwork.

    also, the epicurus i know is greek.

49. to elaborate, obviously the latin and greek classical cultures intersected somewhat (marcus aurelius wrote the meditations in greek). but, just because there was a demosthenes does not mean that the latins did not generally excel in this area vis-a-vi the greeks. and just because there was a virgil does not mean that the greeks did not excel in poetry vis-a-vi the latins. i’m willing to be corrected of course, i’m really not that well read in the arts, but i am well read in ancient history and that is the general impression i get from secondary references when the texts are focusing on cultural history.

50. do you disagree with my contention that in terms of “culture,” by which i mean the literary and visual arts specifically, the classical (and perhaps early hellenistic greeks) beat the romans hands down per capita?

    No,not at all. Just trying to point out that the “lowbrow” Romans did have a seminal influence on the modern worldview.

    I think Lucretius was read for his religious views more than for the aesthetic merit of his poem. Those philosphes were always looking for a lance to spear Christianity with.

    Yes, Epicurus plays for the other team, sorry. Though no less influential for the Enlightenment.