I think someone owes Sikh people an apology [via India West].
When Los Angeles right-wing talk radio host Al Rantel referred to a turbaned Sikh as wearing a “diaper” on his head last week, one local Indian American man decided that he’d had enough.
“If he does not correct himself, on the air, we’re going to put pressure on him,” Navraj Singh told India-West by phone Sept. 17. “I’m getting calls from around the country, and Sikh temples are collecting signatures,” said Singh, adding that he was ready to lead a protest outside the radio station
Rantel is a conservative host whose show airs on KABC 790AM every weekday in Los Angeles. During his Sept. 10 show, Rantel was discussing airport security, and said that if his own 80-year-old mother had to take off her shoes during a security screening, “… then why shouldn’t a Sikh be required to take off the hat that looks like a diaper they wear on their heads?” recalled Singh. [IndiaVest]
When contacted, Rantel’s accomplice producer eloquently stated that this @$$#o!#’$ words were “taken out of context”. Awww. Of course they were! Because there obviously exists a context wherein diapers and turbans nestle innocently in the same sentence. Maybe Rantel was saying, “I saw a nice Sikh man changing his baby’s diaper…it’s great to see Fathers taking such an active role!” Yeah, no…as my little cousin would say.
See? They DO exist:
Singh describes himself as a semi-regular listener to the show, and says he himself is a conservative Republican.
In a strongly worded letter he sent to KABC Sept. 12, Singh challenged Rantel to an on-air debate. Rantel’s team has not yet responded to him. [IndiaVest]
coughCHICKENcough. Gosh, I really need some Ricola. Must be the weather. Seasons change, feelings change, (and now I have Expose in my head, as I fume over this latest example of disrespect).
This Uncle has weathered b.s. in the past:
After a successful career as a decorated officer in the Indian Army, Singh immigrated to New York in 1974, and says he has faced discrimination as a turbaned Sikh in the United States. He says he was laughed at when he started a job as a door-to-door vacuum salesman that year (he later became the company’s top seller, he said), and maintains that he was forced out of another successful sales job in 1979 because his boss was afraid of anti-Iran sentiment during the Iranian hostage crisis.
For those of you in the L.A. area, Singh is the man behind India’s Oven/Tantra. One of his restaurants (the original “oven”) was destroyed during the ’92 riots. But I digress.Rantel the ignorant (I shall bestow this title upon him, yes), is gay and the grandson of Italian immigrants. I know that the latter detail is irrelevant, because this country is fine with Europeans choosing to settle here (shocker– he’s a Minuteman fan), but I am naive enough to be disappointed that his sexual preference didn’t gift him with any compassion. I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh.
So Rantel’s schtick is getting his listeners to “think”, while being funny…which is exactly what we try and do here. Ek teeny weeny difference– I don’t think we’d ever say something as nasty as what he did. I’m thinking that has to do with the whole compassion thing, along with, you know, not being thoughtless.
Singh sees no levity in Rantel’s “diaper” comment.
Me, neither!
“I’m grateful to God that I am a Sikh,” he said. “Our religion is an open book. I want to tell Americans that we have to somehow maintain a nice tone when speaking to each other. Then we can understand each other better, and create a better world for all of us.”
Blame the mouse (Disney owns a majority of Citadel):
KABC 790 AM is a Los Angeles radio station, and a West Coast flagship station for the American Broadcasting Company. A pioneer of the talk radio format, the station went “all-talk” in 1960; they are of the first station ever to do so. This is one of many Disney/ABC Radio stations that has now merged with Citadel Broadcasting and remains an ABC affiliate to this day.[wiki: KABC]
Rantel has characterized his program with several trademarks: live on-the-spot promotions of products and services (unusual in talk radio), frequent presentation of unusual and unknown news stories, and citation of analogies and adages, many of which are his own. [wiki]
He believes in diversity! Well, except diversity of religious headgear.
Despite the numerous appearances of conservatives such as Ann Coulter, the program often features guests with very different opinions than the host. In addition, many guests are authors or leaders of a particular organization. [wiki]
So this next part contains an interesting detail– Rantel doesn’t like anti-semitism. Problem solved! Someone should explain that a turban is more like a yarmulke than a diaper.
Rantel is clearly a political conservative on issues such as the role of the Judicial Branch and taxes. He is known to be a strong supporter of the policies and presidency of Ronald Reagan. He is distinctively critical of what he perceives to be political correction, very supportive of Israel, and irritated by antisemitism, outsourcing of tech support, excessive body weight, and certain statements of Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamente and Madeleine Albright. Primarily in regard to differences with the Bush administration over illegal immigration issues, Rantel is noticeably at odds with specific policies of George W. Bush and Republican members of Congress. [wiki]
He’s edgy! He disagrees with Dubya! But hey, what’s up with the size-ism?
Anyway, here’s the obligatory “we’d love to hear from you”-bullshit from KABC’s website:
We appreciate you taking the time to contact us. We always enjoy hearing comments from our listeners. Unfortunately, due to the large amounts of e-mail that we receive, we may not be able to respond to each and every message. Feel free to call us during business hours, Monday – Friday, 9AM-5PM at 310 840 4900.
Our mailing address is: 3321 S. La Cienega Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90016.
To advertise on TalkRadio 790 KABC:
Please Contact: Matt Mallon (310) 840-4955
If you have feedback for any of the departments at 790 KABC, please let us know!
Okay, then! They asked for it. Let’s let them know!
KABC will definitely be hearing from me.
Still, there’s a secondary point. I think you can be brown, or Sikh, and support a variety of political perspectives.
But I have to wonder how Navraj Singh is able to accommodate his party membership with the fact that others of the same party are the ones who clearly support and agree with Rantel. This rhetoric is coming from one side only, and that side is sending people like Navraj Singh a very clear message – we think you’re inferior. How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?
It’s not like Rantel is the only one, or like this is the first time. Xenophobia is the bread and butter of right wing figures, and anti-brown xenophobia regularly comes from very high places in the party. How does one live with that? How much does it take?
Ah, this is nothing new for Al Rantel, as he is a bigot to the extreme, along with just about anyone else on AM “Hate Radio” in the Los Angeles/Southern California area.
You can contact the station, but in my experience, they won’t give a damn. They know who there demographic audience is, and what that audience wants to hear, i.e white middle-class republican males(and an growing number of said females) between the ages of 35 and 60. South Asian Americans just don’t fit into their viewer concern.
I will contact them also, but I expect little positive response on their part.
I once heard a Iranian-American call into AM 760 on a Sunday afternoon, I believe on the “Tammy Bruce” show. The conversation was about religion, and namely Islam. This Iranian-American fellow explained that his Mother is a Persian Jew, and his Father a Persian Shia Moslem. He explained that he chose Islam as he personal religious identity for various reasons, though he respected his Mother’s background very much.
He was summarily accused of choosing “TERRORISM” by the host of the show…Go figure.
ignorant bloody Americans : p. Rantel is a battyboi wanker : )
Ann Coulter loves talking about ragheads and that is usually cheered wildly by hard core young conservatives.
Al_Chutiya_for_Debauchery Wrote:
“Ann Coulter loves talking about ragheads and that is usually cheered wildly by hard core young conservatives.”
Very true.
I actually have had people try and tell me that the term “raghead” is not even a disparaging remark.
The logic behind that just alludes me.
Let me put it another way – who pays for Rantel? Rantel’s bigotry makes him money. It makes him money because his listeners like it or tolerate it. Who are his listeners? Xenophobic republicans and non-xenophobic republicans who tolerate bigotry.
Multiply that across the range of talk show hosts, and that tells you something about xenophobia and the party base.
But I have to wonder how Navraj Singh is able to accommodate his party membership with the fact that others of the same party are the ones who clearly support and agree with Rantel. This rhetoric is coming from one side only, and that side is sending people like Navraj Singh a very clear message – we think you’re inferior. How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?
Republican Party is becoming scary. The xenophobia is out of control. Muslims and Mexicans and anybody who can be confused for them of course being top enemies. Here is a scary report of a National Review cruise.
Ennis and Al Chutiya for Debauchery…You two just hit the nail on the head.
Its what the listeners WANT to hear.
Its just that simple.
You forgot a step: It makes him money because his advertisers see that the listeners will tolerate it. If there’s enough of a public outcry, if there’s talk of boycotts, those advertisers will get worried, and that’s when the radio station will start pressuring Rantel. That’s what happened with the Don Imus “nappy-headed ho” incident.
Multiply that across the range of talk show hosts, and that tells you something about xenophobia and the party base.
Excellent point. Why are talk show hosts like Medved and Michael Savage so popular?
Sarah Wrote:
“You forgot a step: It makes him money because his advertisers see that the listeners will tolerate it. If there’s enough of a public outcry, if there’s talk of boycotts, those advertisers will get worried, and that’s when the radio station will start pressuring Rantel. That’s what happened with the Don Imus “nappy-headed ho” incident.”
In theory, I agree with you.
In reality though, I think the Don Imus situation in relation to African-Americans and the situation of South Asians, Middle Easterners, Asians in general, Muslims, Sikhs, Mexicans, etc, is very different.
It is fashionable to hate those demographics right now, for various reasons. There is no “white guilt” in relation to those groups. They are not seen as American by many, and the consequences of hating them not only lack negative blow back, but are even encouraged in the media to a large extent.
Showing hatred towards black Americans has consequences, while showing hatred the brown Americans has reward.
Rantel the ignorant (I shall bestow this title upon him, yes), is gay and the grandson of Italian immigrants. I know that the latter detail is irrelevant, because this country is fine with Europeans choosing to settle here
a minor point, but the immigration act of 1924 discriminated against southern and eastern europeans. and to a great extent that was the intent of those passing the legislation, who wanted to maintain the northwest european (“nordic”) character of the united states.
Isn’t this classic? Use one minority to hate on another? That way its easy to play the “See, we support diversity, how can we be bad?” card. Rantel seems like the lowest form of mercenary.
what i don’t understand about these people using the term”raghead” to denigrate sikhs/muslims: wouldn’t all those biblical people be “ragheads”? isn’t that how they dressed? are they assuming that if jesus appeared today he would come back in a three-piece suit and tie?
That’s a really good point. Sickening, but true. I guess the question, then, is how to make it so that hatred toward brown Americans also has consequences. The Day Without An Immigrant protest was a start… multiply that by a major civil rights movement and then, maybe.
I was thinking today about the processes by which immigrant groups become accepted. I was waking up this morning, and through my bedroom window I heard a guy in the street talking about the drug culture in South Philly. He said, “Those Italians are no more than n**gers turned inside out.” It was shocking not only for its racism and total lack of logic, but also because who hears anti-Italian racism these days? Italians weren’t considered white 75 years ago, and my husband’s older relatives have some hair-raising stories about the racism they faced back then. But now Italians are white Americans who can turn around and hate Mexicans and Indians and Iranians without a second thought, and the comment I heard is just anachronistic. I mean, sure, there are complaints about the Sopranos, but compared to the Jena Six or the consistent profiling of Muslims and Sikhs… come on. How does that happen? In another 50 years, will Indians be accepted as Americans and be busy hating on the next wave of immigrants?
Rantel is a jerk, but Ennis–the left has some pretty distasteful characters too. E.g., the Obama staffer who called Hillary “(D-Punjab)”.
In another 50 years, will Indians be accepted as Americans and be busy hating on the next wave of immigrants?
they’re human, aren’t they?
How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?
the world isn’t black & white. people have various priorities and various reasons to vote the way they do. we can’t go inside the minds of individuals and know the exact details of their circumstances. we can look at groups and wonder why they vote the way they do because the numbers should even out random fluctuations. you look at one super wealthy person and wonder why they vote for the green party…well, i think the operative assumption is that though they have money, that isn’t everything. on the other hand, why do jews vote democratic despite their affluence? that’s a real question, and there have been various answers to it.
this is like the whole “self hate” question. is it really self hate, or do you simply not understand the totality of the values, motives and interests of a particular person?
That’s messed up, no doubt, but the right wing actually bases its ideology on this stuff.
Unfortunately, in its attempts to show how ‘tough on terrorism’ it is, the Democratic party buys into the racist right’s rhetoric WAY too often. I don’t really even consider the Democrats to be ‘the left’, personally.
but the right wing actually bases its ideology on this stuff.
are you right wing? is that why you know the basis of right wing ideology? or are you a right wingologist?
i can grant that the american right is gifted with more nativism and racism than the american left. but that doesn’t mean essential assertions which reduce a whole political orientation toward one tendency really push the discussion forward.
Whose God is it anyways? Wrote:
You make an excellent point. I think that most Americans see Jesus Christ, and the majority of those characters and various peoples in the Bible, as ancient incarnations of their modern day selves. This should not be surprising, when one factors in the realization that Christianity has been the religious “cornerstone” of Western civilization, for better or for worse, and that America is regularly viewed and self-labeled as a “Judeo-Christian” society. Add in the fact that people are inherently tribal, selfish, and ethnocentric…
In other words, the term “raghead” or “diaper-head” is a means of labeling the “other”, while ironically the religious backbone of American society, which originated in the lands and peoples of that notion of the “other”, is conveniently seen as a separate entity with a separate origin.
I would love to hear everyone’s input into this matter.
E.g., the Obama staffer who called Hillary “(D-Punjab)”.
this is true, but contemporary lefties tend to use racism in a situational/instrumental manner, it is a means toward an end. e.g., consistently referring to bobby jindal as pyush jindal, the democrats know what they’re doing and to what element they’re appealing. that being said, it’s all in the name of the cause. to use a biological distinction most lefty racism in the USA on the political level is proximate, while some righty racism is ultimate (that is, it is embedded in the set of values).
p.s. implicit psychological tests do confirm that conservatives tend to be more racist than liberals. but i said tend, liberals aren’t immune from the problem so let’s take a step back from the black and white generalizations.
I would love to hear everyone’s input into this matter.
i know of people who have turned this around on people. implicitly people turn their gods into projections of themselves, but most american christians know as a matter of fact that jesus was a jew from the middle east. i had a lebanese american friend who was often called “sand n*gger”, and she would respond to some of her taunters “like jesus.” that usually shut them up because the more religiously devout ones pulled back and looked really confused often.
LOL, Razib, I’m certainly not right wing but I’ve been fighting them long enough that I might be a right wingologist.
I should clarify my statement; that came off as much more general than it was intended. I’m not saying that all right-wingers are racists. They’re not. And there’s no one basis to right-wing ideology any more than there is to left-wing ideology. But the ideological Republicans (as opposed to the more libertarian-leaning, economics-first Republicans), particularly the Christian right, use racism freely. The Willie Horton incident is a famous example; more recently, the locus of that racism has shifted toward demonizing Arabs and Muslims (while leaving African Americans to die on rooftops in New Orleans). The talk-radio right, the ones who freely compare Sikhs’ turbans to diapers and demean black female athletes, are ideological warriors for the Republican party, and the ideology they spout is racist to the core.
I’m aware that there are plenty of conservatives who are into right-wing economic theories, etc., who view talk-radio Republicanism as a cheapening of their philosoph; some of them are people of color, certainly.
So it’s ok for people here to sterotype everybody on the right, yet they start crying when they get sterotyped. It kind of funny if you think about it.
even the very populist dems are pretty xenophobic in their ideas (especially when it comes to outsourcing). probably not racist in the same sense the republican base is, but some of the blue-dogs are no paragons either.
@Sarah:
Hey, if you got any ideas, I’m all ears!
You raise some interesting points here, especially how as time changes, the notion of what “whiteness” really is changes as well. Who knows what time will bring? If I had to guess, Indians will assimilate very quickly into this society within a generation or two, and their decedents will be no different than groups before them, through intermarriage and culture assimilation.
I grew up around a lot of Italians, and saw exactly what you were talking about. They were adamant about their classification of “whiteness” in the modern sense of the term in America, regardless of how proud they were of being “Italian”, or how “ethnic” or “swarthy” mainstream “white” America may have viewed. Hell, I know plenty of Greeks, Arabs, Iranians and Armenians that follow this pattern as well.
Any thoughts on this? I am actually very curious as to how some South Asian Americans view the notion and consequences of assimilation into the America fold.
Not all Republicans hate browns or Muslims. The surreal love-fest starts around the 5-minute mark. I guess it depends on a person’s status, $$, and how much one can donate to the party coffers. 🙂
It’s not like Rantel is the only one, or like this is the first time. Xenophobia is the bread and butter of right wing figures,
Singh describes himself as a semi-regular listener to the show, and says he himself is a conservative Republican.
And this is why these people are amongst the most misguided and confused people around, here they are trotting along thinking their conservative white brethren are with them lock stock and barrel and would do them no wrong, yet at some point mr white conservative reminds mr. non white conservative that he’s different, and unwelcome no matter how hard he tows the line.
While conservatism has many flavors, one cannot completely align themselves with them, without themselves possessing a modicum of self hatred.
even the very populist dems are pretty xenophobic in their ideas (especially when it comes to outsourcing). probably not racist in the same sense the republican base is, but some of the blue-dogs are no paragons either.
this is an interesting point re: outsourcing. some people here on SM were concerned in 2004 when john kerry started banging the drums about benedict arnold CEOs. what if in 2008 the democrats swing toward economic populism and favor throwing up trade barriers with india? how much economic damage and suffering would it cause? what is the “right” thing to do for a brown person?
that depends on what your values are as a brown person. i didn’t really care that the democrats were going populist on trade because it was a brown issue, i cared because i think free trade makes us all more prosperous. that being said, i voted for kerry for other reasons because trade isn’t THAT important to me. if on the other hand i had many cousins employed in IT in bangalore perhaps it would make a difference. that being said, what if a republican victory is bad for you as a brown person in the USA but good for brown people in india because of the trade implications? well, your values determine how the utilitarian calculation plays out, and no one should assume that they know the details of another individual’s weighted parameters.
100% agreed. …no one else has met racist (either overtly or subtly) liberals? i mean, i live in new york city and racism definitely is not extinct here, no matter how much rich white ‘progressive’ residents of park slope want to convince themselves that they’re so multicultural and accepting, blah blah bullshit.
Why is it a stereotype to point out that major figures on the right regularly make these sorts of remarks in a gratuitous way, and they’re never called out for it by other right wing folks, and they never apologize. Look at my comments, I review the evidence pretty clearly.
Hell, I know plenty of Greeks, Arabs, Iranians and Armenians that follow this pattern as well.
muslim immigrants to south asia from west asia perceived themselves as white as compared to the native blacks, so some perception of whiteness predates immigration. and the fact is that armenians, arabs and iranians can often “pass” pretty easily. if you changed the names of most american lebanese to those of italians most people wouldn’t be able to tell (which explains why tony shaloub has played so many italians in his film career). additionally, people from the middle east are classified as white on the census.
whiteness on the margins is often contextual. if someone has a spanish last name they’re not white, but if you switched it to a french or italian one they’d be white. and within their own communities many latinos do make color distinctions between white and non-white, even if they play the game of being colored for anglo consumption (many white cubans are quite racist against non-white cubans in my experience). and of course, 1/2 of american hispanics still put their race as white on the census.
and they’re never called out for it by other right wing folks
that’s false. grover norquist, who is a major right-wing power broker, has married to a palestinian american muslim, and he’s gotten a lot of crap for being “pro-muslim.” the general trend is true, but can we chill on unqualified assertion like “never.”
razib, i wasn’t upset about the outsourcing debate because it was an issue that affected indians in india. i found it distasteful because free trade is the right thing to do in the long term, the protectionist position is morally inconsistent given how much the u.s. has benefited from open markets in a large part of the world, and because a lot of the rhetoric involved pandering to xenophobic tendencies.
independent of this issue, there was very little kerry could have done to make himself less attractive as a candidate to me than bush (unfortunately, that wasn’t what a relevant majority of the u.s. felt). i was just making my point in the context of some of the earlier comments.
as for all the victory beat about imus, well, he might have sat out his time in the penalty box, but looks like he will be back soon in some way, shape, or form. bigotry sells. be it in the explicit form that rantel and his cohorts push it, or the soft-focus euphemisms of fox.
razib, i wasn’t upset about the outsourcing debate because it was an issue that affected indians in india.
i wasn’t pointing to you specifically. but i do recall debates here on SM where on occasion american brown IT workers worried about their jobs got into it with other american brown folk who couched their support for trade specifically in “but is it good for india?” terms. i don’t think either camp was “self hating” or working “against their interests.” the interests and values just differed.
LOL Anna I just noticed the picture. so cute! whose baby?
Coulter is a popular figure, one recognizable to all conservatives. OTOH, I doubt more than 1/20 local republicans could recognize Norquist. He operates at a different level. Still, if I grant your point, I’ve still never seen him call out Coulter or any other bigot in the party. I keep an eye out for such statements, and I haven’t noticed them.
Obama quickly disavowed the D-Punjab crack. I’ve never heard any right wing figure back away from even a similarly mild statement.
@ Razib:
“i know of people who have turned this around on people. implicitly people turn their gods into projections of themselves, but most american christians know as a matter of fact that jesus was a jew from the middle east. i had a lebanese american friend who was often called “sand n*gger”, and she would respond to some of her taunters “like jesus.” that usually shut them up because the more religiously devout ones pulled back and looked really confused often.”
OH MAN!!! THAT IS A DAMN GOOD COMEBACK!
All I have to say is…You mean like Jesus? It is so simple and to the point. I think I’m going to use that next time I find myself in that situation. It is especially fun, because I bet you get to see “religious types” cringe in shock.
If you or your friend don’t mind me stealing that tactic, of course.
P.S…I once played a trick on a bigoted co-worker who insisted on hanging up Evangelical “born again” Christian stuff all over the company bulletin board. It really gave me indigestion having to look at all this prayer stuff everyday. She also HATED anything Arabic/Islamic, which was one and the same to her(An Arab who is not a Muslim, how is that possible???). So, I simply went on-line and printed out the name of Jesus in Arabic(Yeshua), and I even pulled it off of an Arabic Christian website. I posted it on that same bulletin board the next say, and she sure enough tore it down upon seeing it. After which, I naturally told her what it translated into…The look on her face was one of denial and disbelief. 🙂
Still, if I grant your point, I’ve still never seen him call out Coulter or any other bigot in the party. I keep an eye out for such statements, and I haven’t noticed them.
norquist called in cautioned against the “racism” implicit against the anti-immigrant sentiment in the republican party many a time during the recent debates about immigration reform (he used the precedent of anti-catholicism during the early 20th century and how it lost republicans the white ethnics for 2 generations for make a utilitarian case). in any case, even if coulter is more well known than norquist you must have friends on DC and know that he has orders of magnitude more policy MoJo than coulter. he’s not a minor player, he is a major one.
Coulter has repeatedly made extremely bigoted statements and the best he’s done is to “caution”? Heck, Rove has done that much about anti-Latino statements.
The fact that Coulter is a popular figure is important because her remarks show you what the rank and file can tolerate. Norquist’s attitudes don’t do the same thing, because he doesn’t have to maintain a broad base. As a matter of fact, he is reviled by some parts of the base precisely because he is seen as a lackey for “Islamofascism”. So he’s good evidence of widespread bigotry in the base, and his own tepid reactions to this bigotry do not reject the null that nobody is standing up to the racist element in the republican party.
When you’ve got a loud racist chunk and no open opposition, that’s a recipe for bad things.
@Razib:
That is interesting, as I was not aware of that, but it certain does give a historical context to the notion of “whiteness”.
You also raise two very good points here. Most Americans in fact in the post 9/11 madness, did not really know how or where to find “Middle Easterners” in the U.S, especially if they had no special form of clothing to identify themselves, and they usually did not. Hence, and in part thanks to Hollywood’s take on characteristically Arabic/Middle Eastern looks(i.e rather brown), South Asians became the favored targets.
(In my own personal case, my family on my Mother’s side really got the “Brown/Asiatic” end of the stick, and as a result, most Americans seem to think they are Hispanic/Mexican. It is rather amusing to see people try an speak Spanish to them.)
Good example about the Spanish surname and its relation to being suddenly non-white, and how many Hispanics classify themselves on census returns. How ironic that a name can suddenly denote race, without any other factor or pretext taken into account in the American social landscape. Doubly ironic when one contrasts the notion of “whiteness” in Latin American countries, where many modern day immigrants are originating from.
Logic seems to play little with these various social constructs.
Logic seems to play little with these various social constructs.
the social constructs map onto, and are bounded by, empirical realities. there is non-trivial phenotypic overlap between southern, eastern and marginalized europeans (irish is what i’m thinking here) and the “core” white northwest euro stock. there are italians and jews who can “pass” by changing their name. in contrast, can you imagine the typical south asian “americanizing” their name and playing the white? 99% of the time it is not physically possible (there are a small minority of scythians who can pass as dark europeans). if south asians remain a distinct race and maintain a model minority SES profile then they’ll become like japanese or chinese, who have a presence over 150 years in large numbers in the USA but remain non-white. in contrast, arab americans can pass, and have done so. most people don’t know that ralph nader is arab american (he is even rather swarthy for a lebanese in my experience). or that the actress marlow thomas is arab american, or that the singer tiffany is of part-arab origin. the salient distinction of arab amerians is when they are muslim and dress differently. but to paraphrase, shave an arab american and put them on a suit and they wouldn’t stand out that much from jo-schmo (this is biased by the levantine skew in arab americans, as they are “whiter” than gulf arabs or egyptians on average).
So he’s good evidence of widespread bigotry in the base, and his own tepid reactions to this bigotry do not reject the null that nobody is standing up to the racist element in the republican party.
what about the president of the united states? he accused them of being racist at one point if they opposed his immigration legislation!
I’ve seen it written that she was once engaged to Dinesh D’Souza, clearly she became unhinged when the supply of Ibero-Lemurian love ran dry. She needs to get a membership on one of those Indian matrimony sites
I think bringing up Grover Norquist doesnt really prove anything. I would in fact suggest that Grover is in fact an example of whats wrong with the Republicans as evidenced by their attacks on him for being married to a NOMINALLY Muslim Palestinian woman. Its common knowledge in DC that his wife is not particularly religious.
No one is suggesting that there are no non-racist Republicans. The point I was making (and I believe Ennis was as well) is that the reason right wing talk radio peddles in xenophobia and bigotry is because there is a large segment of the talk radio listening Republican population which agrees with the xenophobia and bigotry. That point has not been refuted on here yet.
The fact that the President is accusing his amnesty opponents of racism is more evidence of the racism in the Republican base.
acd, of course there is more racism in the republican base than in the democratic one, i’ve admitted that. this is what i object to in ennis’ comments: But I have to wonder how Navraj Singh is able to accommodate his party membership with the fact that others of the same party are the ones who clearly support and agree with Rantel. This rhetoric is coming from one side only, and that side is sending people like Navraj Singh a very clear message – we think you’re inferior. How does one stay a member of a party or movement whose members have no problem demeaning you?
it would be strange if most indian americans were republicans. as a point of fact that isn’t the case. but what’s the point of asking why navraj singh is still a republican? he’s probably not a dumb guy, so he knows how most republicans, or at least the social conservative segment, feel about toward heathens such as he. so what? how do you know he doesn’t have other concerns? i pointed out earlier on another post that some shia in north india (in UP) have supposedly aligned locally with the BJP against congress because the sunnis dominate that party and there is local rivalry and identity politics at stake. how could a muslim align with the BJP? you know very well what most BJP supporters think of muslims! is it strange that navraj singh is a conservative republican despite the normative bigotry that is not unacceptable in that camp? perhaps not so strange if you asked him his rational, it isn’t like democrats are the only ones who have the ability to think straight based on their axioms and make inferences modulated by the weights they assign to each of their values.
we keep bitching about the ignorance of Americans about sikh/iraq, turban/diaper, swastika/hindu-swastika etc etc. why dont we all try to educate the people around us instead of grouping among ourselves and having a bitch fest ? How about take a folding chair/table down to the closest commercial street in your neighborhood on saturday morning and having a sign saying “if you want to know about India, ask here” or something catchy/clear. I’m sure people will appreciate it and come ask questions and have discussions. It really helps. Maybe we will learn a thing or two ourselves.
Because this isn’t about ignorance, it’s about bigotry and bigots have no interest in learning.
Sarah, you said: Italians weren’t considered white 75 years ago, and my husband’s older relatives have some hair-raising stories about the racism they faced back then. But now Italians are white Americans who can turn around and hate Mexicans and Indians and Iranians without a second thought, and the comment I heard is just anachronistic. I mean, sure, there are complaints about the Sopranos, but compared to the Jena Six or the consistent profiling of Muslims and Sikhs… come on. How does that happen? In another 50 years, will Indians be accepted as Americans and be busy hating on the next wave of immigrants? All except African Americans, though! They’ve been in North America for hundreds of years, and yet they are always the lowest part of any racial hierarchy. Once you’ve been black, you just never come back…
Louiecypher, I heard from someone who talked to Laura Ingraham in a D.C. resteraunt recently and in that conversation, Ingraham apparently said that she used to date Dinesh D’Souza in college. Are you sure you haven’t confused her with Coulter? If not, that boy gets around.
but what’s the point of asking why navraj singh is still a republican?
because it’s a legitamite question.
how do you know he doesn’t have other concerns?
I’m sure he does, but when this issue arises (and it seems to arise, all too often, but not exclusively in the conservative camp) it makes for a very conflicted internal position. It’s the way the statement in the original post was put, “he was a conservative republican” that is an unqualified statement, he didn’t say, “he’s a social conservative, or he’s against abortion” or something more qualified than that. And it’s not a matter of simply ‘being racist’ its a matter of these racists comments being self-policed by their own group, and that clearly isn’t going on in the republican conservative camp. To call yourself a “conservative republican” in an unqualified way is to say “in most points I stand ideologically with this group of people” and yeah, maybe you’re response is, “well this is one deviation” but it’s a pretty frockin big deviation. Just makes it for a tough membership , thats all.