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!
dude, you don’t need anecdotes. google is your friend.
a survey from pew hispanic center: “Latinos’ Support for Larger Government Contrasts with More Conservative Social Views.”
a survey of muslim americans: “It revealed a Muslim American population that is religious, diverse, socially conservative and politically liberal.”
a common story: Democrat, but socially conservative (blacks in south carolina).
as for asian americans, they’ve been trending to the democrats since bush won them in ’92. i’ll leave someone else to find a survey.
btw, social conservative & fiscally liberal is a stereotypical ‘white ethnic’ stance. to some extent one could say this about southern democrats before that region industrialized, the new deal pumped a lot of ‘make work’ into that region (e.g., TVA), and i recall reading that the socialist party had a big following in 1930s texas.
oppose programs which they think result in a transfer of funds to people who they feel aren’t worthy and so on.
You’re assuming that these people aren’t going to be politically involved enough to form the government- they’ll be receiving benefits as opposed to being the ones doling out what the government refers to as “their” budget. If they become loyal enough citizens, the country’s kitty might well be looked at as their own. But that may require a sea change as it does refer to civic pride, which the British have in excess but the Indians and Italians seem to lack. The British drive crapped out vehicles on gorgeous roads. The Italian’s roads are disintegrating, but their car is a freshly waxed Ferrari 😉 Still, look at the way that a typical Gurudwara is run. Before you start laughing, I invite you ignore the odd but endemic scandals and consider this: they never go into debt, rarely spend more than they can afford, offer social programs for the community and maintain a portfolio of investments for rainy days. Our Gurudwara has stocks! I’ve worked for a number of nonprofits with a similar amount of money to come in and an equally demanding mandate, and peoples’ mindsets are really different around how they manage their money. Gurudwaras are almost always run by people who practice fiscal probity (they know that they are accountable to a very prudent membership). I studied five gurudwara’s finances in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia for a project with my father, who is, among other things, an economist, and we were impressed and quite surprised by this state of affairs.
a survey of muslim americans: “It revealed a Muslim American population that is religious, diverse, socially conservative and politically liberal.”
Yeah, Razib, but WHY are they political liberals? Because some aspect of that ideology works for them, while a lot of it doesn’t! Its not a natural fit- to get what they want on immigration or employment equity or whatever social programs they need, the minority populace is forced to concede in other important areas. While it may contradict my initial observations, you’re still arguing my point. There’s a stultifying lack of diversity in the right-left dichotomy.
Here’s another very revealing quote in which an evangelist who reaches out to people of other races and cultures is quick to assure people that he’s no liberal:
He’s saying: 1. I know liberals are inclusive 2. I know that conservatives are usually exclusionary 3. BUT one can be a conservative and still want to have church services with Christians who are not white and not even Americans.
That tells you a lot about the discourse and frame of reference of American conservatives, even Christian Evangelicals, who tend to be more integrated than almost any other part of society.
a survey of muslim americans:
Also, you do realize that Muslims are in the minority in India? They tend to be far more socially conservative than mainstream Indians, so they aren’t a good foil for this debate, IMO.
settled. socially conservative and fiscally liberal is the authentic brown perspective. (thank god for uncle toms)
That tells you a lot about the discourse and frame of reference of American conservatives, even Christian Evangelicals, who tend to be more integrated than almost any other part of society.
the military is the most integrated, and military heavy towns are also generally the most integrated.
Also, you do realize that Muslims are in the minority in India? They tend to be far more socially conservative than mainstream Indians, so they aren’t a good foil for this debate, IMO.
uh, yeah, i do realize they’re a minority. muslim americans aren’t mostly brown anyway, i was just using them as an example of a socially conservative and fiscally liberal minority. we do know that indian americans tend to vote democrat. would be interesting to see what the typical indian american (who is a first generation immigrant) thinks on major social issues.
we do know that indian americans tend to vote democrat. would be interesting to see what the typical indian american (who is a first generation immigrant) thinks on major social issues
I agree. I mean, this is a place where the lower castes are still referred to as OBCs (other backward castes) on all formal government correspondence. This year, the All- India medical school was busy starving itself in protest at the excess of love directed toward those dalits who had been fortunate enough to benefit from affirmative action. At the same time, many American desis have no doubt mellowed somewhat through the new positionality they’ve acquired, but the whole thing is confused by the fact that there are an array of voices like Shonali Bose, Deepa Mehta et al. who genuinely followed a subversive politics in the belly of the beast. And what about the lower castes that have also immigrated? And the fact that there is a huge sexual revolution sweeping across India?
But its definitely not going to be cookie cutter Democrat, I can tell you that.
what do gay muslims do?
what do gay muslims do?
Escape to the west, and get paid mass dollars to write pedantic op-eds on reforming Islam.
Seduce Hindu Republican Uncle Toms who thought they were straight, making them even more confused.
Please don’t use the phrase “Uncle Tom”. We usually delete comments which contain it. Thank you.
Escape to the west, and get paid mass dollars to write pedantic op-eds on reforming Islam.
you sure you mean pedantic? mebee “pandering”?
OK, sorry.
They seduce Hindu Republican right wingers who think about gay Muslims in their spare time, making them even more confused than they were before.
you sure you mean pedantic? mebee “pandering”?
I think that both would apply. Pedantic in the sense that they are labouriously crafted in a stasis of verbal tedium and endlessly nitpick about the finer points of Islam and the west- this, that, and the other until your spinal fluid wants to evaporate from your brain cavity in sheer boredom. I mean, really, who actually reads those things? The conservatives don’t really care; they just put this drizzle on their pages to show that they can be inclusive, too. Honest Injun! If it were truly engaging or interesting, they’d kick it off the page. But I should have described it all as “bought-and-sold” commentary.
Have you ever heard of Irshad Manji- the “Muslim Refusenik”? She occupies a permanent and unreadable berth once a month in our supposedly centrist Globe and Mail. Gah.
yes, she is well known. that is who i assumed you were talking about.
why do people keep on making mistakes like this. this is reminiscent of a previous post pointing out that michael moore emaphasized gupta in a way that takes power away from someone by ridiculing or mocking something linked to race. unacceptable, why does it keep on happening.
While an outspoken advocate for diversity within his church, Mr. Perrin is quick to point out that he is no liberal. He voted twice for President Bush
This could be read in multiple ways, “advocate for diversity” is pretty vague. Does this means he appreciates different cultures and ethnicities as they are? or does he see them as ripe for Christian conversion? The pope is an advocate for diversity also, from a point of view.
This could be read in multiple ways, “advocate for diversity” is pretty vague. Does this means he appreciates different cultures and ethnicities as they are? or does he see them as ripe for Christian conversion? The pope is an advocate for diversity also, from a point of view.
you could read the article if you’re really interested. it’s pretty short (and it makes it pretty clear i think what he means, at least in terms of what you’re asking about).
oh, cute baby btw.
The article is about one church that was running out of white congregants until it opened up its doors to non-white Christians from other parts of the world. “Advocate for diversity” means argue that they should have African and Asian Christians worshiping together in the same church, they had white congregants leave over the changes because they didn’t recognize their old Southern Baptist Church, a church which had been lily white until then.
It’s not about converting others, it’s about sharing a church after conversion. This is my point about the base of the conservative movement, that they aren’t comfortable with immigrants, even when they share the same values.
It’s not about converting others,
I see your point, however, statements like this scream conversion to me:
“I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, and I am commanded by him to go and tell everybody who he is,� he said. “And because we’re in a free country you have the freedom to choose.”
or this:
“We realized that what the Lord had in store for that old Clarkston Baptist Church was to transition into a truly international church and to help minister to all these ethnic groups moving into the county”
But I agree with your point, the implication of different races meaning wildly different value systems is ingrained in SO many minds, they feel they “have” to be different.
HMF, I’m not making myself clear. Yes, they wanted to convert but then they didn’t want the converts to worship with them. That statement was from a preacher defending the idea of inviting immigrant christians to worship in the same congregation, something he did only when there were too few white people, and he’s defensive about it, saying just because I invited a whole bunch of foreign christians into my church doesn’t make me a liberal.
That shows the depth of anti-immigrant sentiment that he has to defend that idea, even when the white congregation was too poor to survive on its own.
Southern Baptists and evangelicals form a part of the conservative movement’s base. They aren’t THE base, although they are well organized and extremely vocal.
the article notes that muslims have complained about proselytizing to muslim refugees. and the problem didn’t seem to be “value systems,” the problem was the differences in packaging and style. the issues mentioned in that article aren’t necessarily really race based, there have been evangelical christians who converted to eastern orthodoxy because they were turned off the “marketing driven” populist style of their denominations. there are roman catholics who will only attend latin mass.
That shows the depth of anti-immigrant sentiment that he has to defend that idea, even when the white congregation was too poor to survive on its own.
I understand and agree with your point. But based on the article, I’d question the authors claim that ‘he’s for diversity’ in a ‘we respect all different cultures and faiths’ when it’s clear he doesn’t.
Anna’s post: “Rantel the ignorant (I shall bestow this title upon him, yes), is gay and the grandson of Italian immigrants… 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.”
3: “ignorant bloody Americans : p. Rantel is a battyboi wanker : )”
113: “Please don’t use the phrase “Uncle Tom””…
I understand the need to filter out certain phrases for their historically racist connotations, but it’s disappointing to not see the same regard against homophobic terms.
Anna, I know it may have seemed innocuous, but the joke was more insulting than funny and reminds me of a typical male attack on female opponents, who are seemingly rigid in their beliefs, that they have simply haven’t “got any” or “gotten it well enough.” Whether Rantel is penetrated satisfactorily is neither the issue nor the solution; his convictions seem to come from a deeper place than his prostate, and that is where any moral probing should take place.
Which makes it even stronger, since he is still defensive about even that little “diversity”, i.e. diversity of national origin and skin color amongst Christians. That’s the conservative base.
This comes back to the earlier point, which is how does one stay in a movement where they reject you based on ascriptive identity, even if you share the same values.
and the problem didn’t seem to be “value systems,” the problem was the differences in packaging and style.
The process of conversion combines the value system with packaging. They really aren’t that separable, thats why Christian’s many times on the street hand you a business card stabled to a pack of gum that reads, “let this small gift remind you of Jesus Christ” They’re trying to buy you.
Of course it wasn’t value systems, they were Christians with similar beliefs. That’s what makes the resistance interesting.
It’s not clear they weren’t really race based. Even Southern Baptists know better than to complain about sharing pews with African Christians because they are back, instead they complain about the fact that they sing different hymns.
Think about the fact that they were too small to survive, and they’re still complaining about the newcomers. That’s classic xenophobia – same values as the new folks, you need them, and you still complain and threaten to leave.
The process of conversion combines the value system with packaging. They really aren’t that separable
yes they are.
This comes back to the earlier point, which is how does one stay in a movement where they reject you based on ascriptive identity, even if you share the same values.
they manage to elect interracially married republicans. mitch mcconnell, phil gramm and jeb bush. and wouldn’t malkin falsify your point that values don’t matter?
Jeb Bush gets elected in Florida. Ever wonder why George ran when Jeb was the more successful politician?
Ever wonder why George ran when Jeb was the more successful politician?
because he lost in ’94 to lawton chiles while bush won in ’94. so in 1999 jeb was in year 1 and george was in year 5. that’s the standard explanation.
now, how do we explain mitch mconnel winning in kentucky with an asian wife? or speaking of texas, phil gramm with his korean american wife?
yes they are.
No they arent. When a Christian (or any other religious converting person) packages something in a potentially ‘devious’ way (as the muslim imam was claiming) he’s doing so because he values his system as higher.
they manage to elect interracially married republicans. mitch mcconnell, phil gramm and jeb bush. and wouldn’t malkin falsify your point that values don’t matter?
What does interracial electabls have to do with Christian conversion mentality?
some data
would vote for presidential candidate… liberal/moderate/conservative
black 95 94 92 hispanice 92 87 84 homosexual 81 57 36
more here http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611
Elaine Chao was McConnel’s second wife, they didn’t marry until 1993, he was already in office by then. Wendy Gramm is also Phil Gramm’s second wife – the significance is in both cases there are white children and a white candidate. It’s not a strong case for tolerance.
p.s. You know what happened to McCain’s brown daughter during the Presidential election, right?
People commonly self report considerably more tolerance than they actually display, which makes studying tolerance in America tricky (in some other countries they are happy to display bigotry to pollsters).
p.s. You know what happened to McCain’s brown daughter during the Presidential election, right?
sure. i keep admitting that there’s a lot of racism out there in the conservative movement. should i add it as a signature for the purposes of this thread?
People commonly self report considerably more tolerance than they actually display, which makes studying tolerance in America tricky (in some other countries they are happy to display bigotry to pollsters).
of course. but you’re making pretty strong statements. you used the analogy of neo-nazis in israel and russia for conservative non-whites, admittedly it was a reductio ad absurdum, but i think that the magnitude is far weaker.
p.s. http://www.nndb.com/people/407/000024335/ gramm’s sons seem to be from the second wife (you can confirm that with pictures, i’ve seen them), not the first. no listing of offspring from that.
i once saw phil graham and his wife in a upper e. side bar. my “favorite” political smear was mario cuomo’s vs. ed koch: “vote for cuomo, not the homo.” not sure if any of this is relevant, but figured i’d throw it in.
p.s. re: racism, why are we ignoring bobby jindal??? he probably lost in 2003 because of racism (the flipping from repub to dem was exactly in areas where duke was strong), but the fact that he comes close pretty confirms that many republicans can look past values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana's_1st_congressional_district
that’s jindal’s district. it is 83% white, and has voted 78 and 88 percent in favor of him in 2004 and 2006.
“many republicans can look past values.”
substitute “race.”
Agreed, I was just using that to show that there are some people who will stay in a movement even when it seems logically impossible.
My argument is that the conservative base and elite are significantly less tolerant than their competitors, and that intolerance seems to be central rather than peripheral, which is why it is so resistant to change, even when they need Latino votes.
p.s. I was wrong on Gramm.
My argument is that the conservative base and elite are significantly less tolerant than their competitors, and that intolerance seems to be central rather than peripheral, which is why it is so resistant to change, even when they need Latino votes.
1) i think the elite isn’t that intolerant. they pander to the intolerance of the xenophobic element, but that’s a lot like pandering on abortion issues.
2) yes, the right is more racists than the left. how much more racist? well, there is the data above, but there are also implicit psychological tests. there is a difference and it is quantifiable, but it isn’t black or white. this is a classic case where group differences exist, and they are important, but that shouldn’t let us fall into the trap of simply constructing two platonic ideals.
3) as for central vs. peripheral. i don’t know, there is certainly a racialist element…but a lot of the anxiety and xenophobia has come out due to exogenous triggers. e.g., there is a reason that stuff tends to become more notable during times of economic distress, or after something like 9/11.
that’s jindal’s district. it is 83% white, and has voted 78 and 88 percent in favor of him in 2004 and 2006.
Yes, white catholic, cajun.
And Jindal is catholic.
Again, it is not about being brown in louisiana, particularly south louisiana – it is about white, and african americans. jindal is with the whites.
p.s. re: racism, why are we ignoring bobby jindal??? he probably lost in 2003 because of racism (the flipping from repub to dem was exactly in areas where duke was strong), but the fact that he comes close pretty confirms that many republicans can look past values.
razib, you are misleading everyone.
jindal lost because he did not any african american votes, and white working class from north louisiana switched to blanco.
david duke supporters in south louisiana and for that matter in north louisiana will vote for jindal since vis-a-vis his stance on social services and african americans.
Yes, white catholic, cajun.
And Jindal is catholic.
ennis is implying that values don’t matter. i am saying they might.
razib, you are misleading everyone.
jindal lost because he did not any african american votes, and white working class from north louisiana switched to blanco.
and republicans normally get any of the black vote? is there something i don’t understand about louisiana politics? (yes, i know he got some endorsements)
and white working class from north louisiana switched to blanco.
yes. duke voters.