Abhi and I have both independently been thinking about the same problem, but we’ve come to slightly different solutions. Imagine for a second that Representative King and conservative talk show host Mike Gallagher and other wingnuts are right. Maybe it’s time to overcome our politically correct scruples and embrace overt profiling of all Muslim males. Maybe what we need is a screening policy that makes sure that every single Muslim male is scrutinized, and not one gets by without close examination.
How would we implement this?
<
p>None of those in favor of the plan have thought about implementation. For example, this is what one Republican congressional candidate said:
“Well, you know, if he comes in wearing a turban and his name is Mohammed, that’s a good start” [Link]
Yeah riiiiiight. That would be around as effective as looking for men with “Terrorist” signs around their neck.
King calls for special treatment of all travellers of Middle Eastern or South Asian origin, but that clearly would be insufficient to accomplish his goals. 25% of all Muslims in America are black, and his plan ignores all of them. There have also been several serious plots involving both South East Asian Muslims and African ones, so we would need something far more extreme than the wimpy measures King suggests.
<
p>No, if we’re going to be real men about this, we have to overcome our squeamishness, adapt a rigid approach and realize that all Muslim men have only one physical attribute in common – they’re all circumcised.
<
p>
That’s right – I think there should be one line for men with foreskin, and another for men without. Uncut males get expedited boarding, while the circumcised get extra scrutiny.
If we think about the global population, there are only a few types of men who are circumcised: Jews, Muslims, certain African ethnic groups, and North Americans. Really, a minority of the world, but one that encomasses all Muslim men.
Certainly there will be false positives, but we already accepted that when we agreed to screen all Muslims. If you’re truly innocent, then this should be hardly any skin off your nose.
I say it’s time for all circumcised Americans stand up straight and make a small sacrifice for national security. What say you?
south koreans and filipinos are circumcised too (americo-emulation).
Hilarious, though I’d feel sorry for the poor guy stuck with the screening duty. Not likely to go over since the vast majority of the decision-makers in this regard are probably circumcised themselves.
If they’re innocent, they should be willing to make a small sacrifice to make sure that all Muslim men are also screened. And if they really hate being singled out, they could always go in for elective foreskin re-attachment surgery 😉
You’d get fewer false positives in the future. The American Academy of Pediatrics announced 5 or so years ago that it couldn’t recommend for or against circumcision anymore (they used to recommend it). I have a lot of friends who’ve opted not to circumcize their sons since that announcement.
That’s why you need 50 virgins for the job.
That’s why you need 50 virgins for the job.
I would worry that such inexperienced men would be traumatized and prone to excessive self-doubt. . .
I’m a non-Muslim (raised Roman Catholic) who was circumsised at birth. That was apparently a big “healthy” parenting fad in the late 60’s…
PS- This post gives me the creeps, even though it was obviously submitted in jest. I’m reminded of all the horror stories from Partition of the militias setting up roadblocks and subjecting all male passers by to shortarm inspections. The wrong result got you a bullet in the back of the head. I actually had nightmares after I read about that somewhere when I was a little kid…
We should combine this with Abhi’s matchmaking “Sepia Destiny” idea. That’s a no-brainer.
Sidenote; A college friend’s father has become a strong anti-circumcision activist in the past five years. how this happened, no one knows, but when my friend asked him what he wanted for Christmas, his response was “my foreskin”.
See, I think of Abhi’s proposal as being a poorly disguised affirmative action plan for desi men. But then again, maybe there’s more than one way to skin a …
I’m a non-Muslim (raised Roman Catholic) who was circumsised at birth. That was apparently a big “healthy” parenting fad in the late 60’s…
circumcision became common in the anglo-world (england, NZ, oz, USA and canada) in the late 19th century. there are manifold reasons. one of them was british philo-semitism, as queen victoria had her sons circumcised under the assumption that her house was descended from the line of david (the windsors up to charles have been cut, though diana refused to let her sons be circumcised). additionally, there was a medical movement simultaneously which argued that circumcision alleviated mental illnesses like masturbation. finally, after world war II the US really pushed it hard because of higher infection rates of uncut soldiers during the war because of the inability to wash for long periods of time. circumcision became rare after world war II in england and oz & NZ cuz the national health services wouldn’t subsidize it. in contrast it remained popular in the USA and canada for longer. there are variations across the USA in rates of circumcision, with the lowest rates among immigrants & minorities, lower SES groups and in the pacific northwest, higher rates among high SES, northeasterners and native born whites.
it is an emotional issue, and i am curious if this thread will devolve with an influx of circum & anti activists via google searches….
There’s a sex and the city episode that touches on this whic is kinda funny. It must have been an early one b/c I haven’t seen too many.
datta, leave it to you to take this to the gutter….
Razib – do you have figures on South Asian Americans? And where’s Saurav?
do you have figures on South Asian Americans?
no. i assume that all muslims will be cut, and my impression is that non-muslims remain uncut. i was curious if like other immigrant groups brown non-muslims allowed their children to be cut so i’ve asked, and it all seems negatory. the difference is that european immigrants didn’t come form cultures where there was a large minority who were distinctive in being circumcized. in bengali circumcision translates to “becoming a muslim,” so i think there are reasons hindus wouldn’t assimilate to this dominant practice (i believe it is the same in russian from comments putin made which were misunderstanding in america where the close relationship between islam & circumcision isn’t understood).
Ennis,
How about a separate line where man with more than one wife stands.
Yes, I was born in the U.S… in New Orleans, in 1968, to be more specific. I can still remember my parents explaining circumcision… and its supposed health benefits… during their “Birds & Bees” lectures…
Same here. Raised hindu Bengali and was circumcised as a result of a diagnosis of physiologic phimosis. Those partition-story nightmares came back the other day when I was watching Mr.and Mrs. Iyer.
i do think ennis’ foreskin emphasis is interesting, as it will emphasize to many americans what they share with muslims in particular 🙂
I’m not sure how far this is true, but I’ve heard that during the Bombay riots, violent mobs would grab kids and have them recite the qalimah syahadat (proclamation of Islamic) or the Gayathri mantra, depending of course which mob one’s misfortune collides with. And then boys are promptly asked to strip, and the presence of foreskin would result in immediate immolation (and vice versa of course — kid is asked to recite the Gayathri mantra, and then asked to strip). I have no clue on the veracity of this story, but it isn’t far fetched considering the violent proclivity of impassioned imberciles.
Sorry OT macacas – but great interview with our dear young SR Sidarth on Young Turks:
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2006/8/16/201332/564
This won’t help weed out the female terrorists though… Nor the cross dressing ones…
Thotta,
I don’t know the merit of this story but during partition this is the only way to get away from the hands of murders. Usually you drop down your pants (or whatever one wearing) to show your privates and then you know what. I still wonder how they distinguish between females.
These guys are taking a different approach: at least prevent the terrorists from getting their 72 virgins if you can’t stop them:
Actually this may have a higher chance of being more effective than any of the ineffective and expensive bomb scanning, profiling, wire tapping etc etc currently being done. 😉
I’ve considered a few of these and I can’t see it. The 9/11 hijackers in Boston went to a strip club and drank alcohol the night before. They weren’t exactly behaving in a doctrinaire way. Foreskin, though, is part of the covenant with God. It’s at a very different level.
Oh there is no reason to have TSA human employee to do this ingenius “check” that is going to save us from all terrorism. This is a great idea. I say, give Lokheed Martin or GE or Northrup Grumman a 10-15 Billion dollors contract to come up with a wee-wee scanner. Although the actual cost may be 1/10 of the contract, but for “security” we must pay 800 dollars for a toilest seat.
Foreskin, though, is part of the covenant with God.
not really, or at least there is nothing within the koran. it is simply an islamic custom (the pre-islamic arabs circumcised themselves, as did the egyptians), it does not have a sacral conotation as it does in judaism. and this isn’t just some obscure fact, my father knows this from his own father who was schooled hanafi sunni tradition.
though ennis’ point is well taken. this is a close to ‘fool proof’ method of distinguishing non-muslim brown from muslim brown.
The jews are circumcised too….so can’t see this working
Wait, umm, guys, are you saying most North Americans are circumcised? Or only of the generation before World War II? I am surprised that the Windsors were too. In terms of total world population, is it the norm then rather than the exception?
Wait, umm, guys, are you saying most North Americans are circumcised? Or only of the generation before World War II? I am surprised that the Windsors were too. In terms of total world population, is it the norm then rather than the exception?
1) yes, most north americans. the peak of circum. rates was 90% of american infants in the 1960s, but i think it has dropped down to the 60% level in the last few years. in canada is even lower. there are regional variations, less circumcision in the west, more in the northeast.
2) about 70% of circumcised males in the world are muslim. most of the rest are either african or american (USA). most west african and east african cultures circumcise even if they are not muslim. the zulu in south africa do not (shaka banned it), many of the nilotic peoples do not (e.g., the luo of kenya are the only major ethnic group not to circumcise).
3) philippines and south korea are two nations which started circumcision in explicit emulation of american norms after world war ii.
there is confusion over this. most americans don’t know that europeans, or their forebears, do/did not circumcise. i even understand that some americans think that christians are circumcised! i remember reading a science fiction novel in the 90s where the author states that a naked main character was “obviously western” because he was circumcised (would be a surprise to europeans 🙂
p.s. circumcision is found in many cultures, though the preponderance are found among the ones listed above. i know of australian aboriginal groups which practice, but numerically they are obviousy trivial.
There is still a push in for circumcision in some American hospitals. My brother and his wife recently had a boy and the doctors were borderline coercive in recommending it. It got to the point that he simply told them that Hindus don’t do that and they backed off.
I am Indian Christian (born in the US), and I’m circumsized.
I am Indian Christian (born in the US), and I’m circumsized.
i will offer a hypothesis that christian browns will circumcise because it is still the dominant cultural norm, but hindus and sikhs will not, because christianity does not contrast itself with islam on this particular issue much. hindus and sikhs will not circumcise because of the cultural issues alluded to above.
Razib – do you have a source for this? You can comment here or email me, but that makes this argument stronger than it had initially appeared.
I stand corrected. That makes it even more interesting though. An Abrahamic faith that doesn’t view circumcision as a covenant.
Stand up straight, eh. LOL.
My favorite country name is “Burkina Faso” which under colonial rule was called “Upper Volta”. “Burkina Faso” translates to “the land of upright men”
Hmmm… so only Schmucks on a Plane are considered safe ?
ennis,
i saw it in lit in the mid 90s, so i can’t reference, but
1.2 billion muslim (all cut)
80% of american males cut = 240 (this is probably an overestimate, but let’s use it)
55% of african are not muslim X 850 million = 467 (that is a pretty big overestimate i suspect)
but, taking that, we get 62% of circumcised males in the world being muslim (south korea and phillipines would add trivial numbers to that). i think this is probably the low bound because of assumptions i made above (the african number is probably closer to 70% of non-muslim males).
Maybe that further translates to men of good health or something. lol
Or, purchase this.
How about asking each passenger what his or her favortie episode of Seinfeld is? No terrorist would ever watch a show with such a jewey name to it and anyone who watches Seinfeld has to be somewhat of a decent human being.
And another thing. If these people are so attached to profiling, how about putting a GPS tracking device on each white male who ever travels to asia. It seems like the only thing they ever go to Asia for is for all the young children there to “PLAY” with if you know what im saying.
Razib: more recent figures on variation in circumcision rates in the USA over time, but no cumulative figures indicating what percentage of males are currently cut. My guess is closer to 70% than 80%.
This surprised me:
I’d concur with BranchDravidian. While I realize we’re trying to be funny here, I’d still find this post to be historically insensitive; at various points in our violent history, (the absence/ presence of) foreskin meant the difference between life and death for thousands in South Asia. To wish for such a situation, even satirically, feels wrong on so many different levels.
ennis,
the west of the USA is the most secular and in many ways the most culturally avante guarde. one thing that keeps circumcision common in the northeast is obviously the large jewish population, and jewish docs tend to be a bit more supportive of this practice than not 🙂 but yes, i’ve had friends who worked in day care, and they can attest to the change (they were frankly a big disgusted by it since the vast majority of male penises they had seen in their life were circumcised).
Well, they’ll have to get used to it. For Americans born in 2003, only 56% were cut leaving 44% intact. That’s a big drop from a peak of 85% circumcision in 1965.
To much talk about a little piece of skin.
God said that if you love him you should take a knife to your wang and if that doesnt make sense then your a racist.
Razib, wait a min. You say 1.2 billion muslims all cut. Is there something I didn’t get, or did you just count in ALL muslims, male and female in the 1.2? Or are you implying there are about 2.4 billion muslims in the world?