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!
Edit: Jindal is a pseudo-catholic.
Edit: Jindal is a pseudo-catholic.
are you his therapist? aren’t you violating some professional obligation toward keeping quiet about that if you are?
re: jindal, this is what i mean, http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss1/art3/ The recent gubernatorial election in Louisiana suggests that racial issues remain salient in the Deep South. Pre-election polls showed Republican Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American supported by George W. Bush and Governor Mike Foster, with a comfortable lead. However, Democratic Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco may have benefited from white voters’ discomfort with supporting a brown-skinned Indian-American. Her performance, both absolutely and relative to normal Democratic showings, correlates strongly with the support won by David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klansman, who ran as Republican in 1991. These findings also suggest that efforts to build a more racially diverse Republican party may encounter resistance from white conservatives, especially in rural areas.
that paper might be wrong (though interesting, jena, louisiana was one of those areas where republicans swung strongly democratic in 2003).
yes. duke voters.
sure, the white working class from north louisiana are most strident about race relations, and are one of the core group of david duke supporters.
but in his heyday, david duke had lot of supporters in south louisiana as well – he made his career wearing german ss dresses at LSU, and giving his views at the free speech alley – he got the majority white vote (55% confirmed by exit polls) in his famous election against edwin edwards
yes, republicans do not get any african american votes
3: “ignorant bloody Americans : p. Rantel is a battyboi wanker : )”
113: “Please don’t use the phrase “Uncle Tom””…
Wanker is homophobic? We moderate to prevent racist abuse and homophobic slurs (and anything else like that). It’s disappointing that it seems otherwise. I wish we had the benefit of your doubt, not everyone knows the different meanings for words. I would have deleted the comment you selected if I had known.
My apologies. For the record, I’m not homophobic. It was in reference to Rantel. I have a gay Indian mate. If I offended anyone with that comment, I’m sorry.
no, battyboi is. see, for example, this wiki entry. i think there was a controversy in britain about a year ago regarding a jamaican reggae singer who used this term in anti-gay songs.
the liberal blogosphere here in the states uses the term wanker to signify someone who is being too wonky and calling a foul on their own side. so i doubt that it is perceived to be homophobic on this side of the pond. perhaps people might be sensitive to differences in idiom and slang uses? as it is, i’m disappointed 😉
The Singh guy in the article needs to go away. He can listen to hate radio until it’s him who is offended? No, sorry, it doesn’t work that way. He got what he deserved and everyone else can just not listen
Regarding Razib’s predictions on assimilation of the desi population and how it will be affected by outmarriage, I’ve anecdotally seen outmarriage decreasing and increasing cultural ties to India among 1.5 and 2nd gens. The internet is going to ensure a larger percentage of Indians falling among groups 1 and 2. There might even be a group 4, people who never assimilate and keep their ties to their community in India due to the internet.
Yes dravidian lurker identified it, I was referring to “battyboi.” I had also taken issue with the original post’s “I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh.”, which tends to be both homophobic and sexist.
6-3SpicyBrownScythianMunda, I don’t believe you don’t have gay friends, nor do I think ANNA is, or meant to come off as, a homophobe, but I am asking for more attention to language not just when it comes to race, politics, or gender, but also sexuality and its various intersections.
Just like Asian/Desi issues tend to be pushed to the sidelines during mainstream conversations on race, rhetorical sensitivity to the queer perspective often takes a backseat.
As much as I don’t like being the language police, I do think this is an oft-ignored issue that people should start learning to recognize and challenge themselves.
“I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh.”, which tends to be both homophobic and sexist.
no it doesn’t. ???
just looked up battyboi. you learn something every day….
“I guess no one ever gave him a hard time. Heh.”, which tends to be both homophobic and sexist.
no it doesn’t. ???
i agree with razib.
in this context, all it means is “someone being uncomfortable“. other common usage are:
Noun 1. hard time – a difficulty that can be overcome with effort; “we had a hard time getting here”; “analysts predicted rough sledding for handset makers” rough sledding difficulty – a condition or state of affairs almost beyond one’s ability to deal with and requiring great effort to bear or overcome; “grappling with financial difficulties” 2. hard time – a term served in a maximum security prison prison term, sentence, time – the period of time a prisoner is imprisoned; “he served a prison term of 15 months”; “his sentence was 5 to 10 years”; “he is doing time in the county jail”
Kush, since you’re already looking up “hard time,” look up “double entendre.”
dude, you remind me of my friend who insisted that you shouldn’t say “jews,” you should say “jewish people.”
there’s something to that. antisemites almost always say “jew” or “the jews,” but rarely “jewish people.” the jews themselves often refer to themselves as “the jews” but that doesn’t change the fact that this is the preferred anti-semitic way of saying it. it has a certain stinging ring.
i once dated an inti-Semite, so i should know.
@Manju:
That all just sounds a little too “1984” to me…
Manju: Would it be fair to say that you are a little anti-semitic?
South Asians have long been subjected to all sorts of derogatory labels such as Paki, mudfaces, pappadoms, ragheads and now diapers (for Sikhs). It’s our self-effacing and shifty manner that often invite this. So we get hurt, we find we can’t respond effectively – we don’t have power in Anglo societies and more important we don’t know how to respond with humour and panache.
Anglos thrive on their verbal skills and they can be highly inventive. Why can’t we do the same? It’s no use moaning among ourselves – they love to see us squirm. the answer is to hit back the same Anglo way -verbally. Can we? let’s invent labels of our own. The blacks came up with honkey, the Latinos with gringo. And South Asians? Blank and vacuous as usual. I suggest we build a lexicon of jolly and punchy labels against the Anglo racists and rightwingers. How about it?
but that doesn’t change the fact that this is the preferred anti-semitic way of saying it. it has a certain stinging ring.
Why stop there. Lets outlaw ‘chew-bacca’ some might think you’re saying ‘jew bacca’ or how about the word ‘choose’, If you say it fast, it just has that certain ring to it, I’d suggest the word ‘pick’ but, drat there just so different.
manju, is that why you stopped returning my calls? i really only meant that i dislike orange juice.
this would be an interesting question for non-white Mormons prior to the watershed year of 1978, when the oh so benevolent LDS felt it necessary to mention to all its members that all male members were eligible for priesthood.
so if anti-Arab racists use the pronunciation, “Eh-Rabb,” all those speaking with a particular twang are now suddenly racists? With group identifiers, they are usually acceptable in polite society discourse until all agree that they have acquired associations distasteful enough to warrant consigning these terms to the dustbin. In other words, you can apply the Rortian definition of the ‘truth’ when thinking about whether a particular group identifier is acceptable or not–will society let me get away with using, “xxxx”?
Forgive my wack quoting-skills. “so if anti-Arab racists use the pronunciation, “Eh-Rabb,” all those speaking with a particular twang are now suddenly racists?…In other words, you can apply the Rortian definition of the ‘truth’ when thinking about whether a particular group identifier is acceptable or not–will society let me get away with using, “xxxx”?”
Unlike Jews/Jewish people, Arabs never called themselves “eh-Rabb”, meaning that if you are aware of that groups self-identification (knowledge inescapable to the vast majority who even know what Arab/Eh-rabb refers to) and you distort it into something new anyway, then while you may not be an overt, extreme racist, you certainly display a complete disregard for that group’s self-identification and agency in that respect. There is more often than not a racial element to that, however strong or weak it may be. Same goes for the nonchalant usage of terms like “Eye-raq” and “Eye-ran” in American media, and other such terms.
While I disagree with the comment about calling people Jews, as I don’t think that’s inherently offensive, this Arab example isn’t a proper parallel, if in fact you were attempting to use it to justify the usage of Jew as a term. “Polite society discourse” may not define such people as racists, but I would on ethical grounds.
and such windbaggery to reach the first and only sentence that you really needed to write. I was making the point that using the word “Jews” to refer to any Jewish population is fairly common in mass media and that by automatically assigning the ‘anti-semitic’ tag to every deployment of this term, one throws too fine and too large a anti-racist net.
Ever wonder why Neil never ran for anything? Hmm, I wonder if it was because he took interracial stuff to a new level amomg the Bushies by banging two Thai hookers in his hotel room.
OK OK. That’s stretching it. I just wanted an excuse to bring it up.
Even if the radio station does nothing, I think it would be useful to figure out who their sponsors are and target accordingly. I also think it’s good that a “long time listener” is criticizing the show, but I do wonder if anyone would have said anything when this guy vilifies Mexican Americans and immigrants (his other favorite racial punching bag).
I’m actually a little surprised by this whole “how can a brown person vote Republican?” conversation. Most of the desis I meet are socially and fiscally moderate/conservative, and — until this president — vote Republican and register Republican. By fiscally “moderate” I mean they are generally opposed to government waste in spending, excessive taxation, and out of balance budgets. This is actually why my dad votes Democrat, despite the higher tax incidence.
I understand the point re: the current Republican tactic hinging on stirring up racist sentiments (perhaps its a form of pro-racist populism?), and I do wonder how people deprioritize or prioritize certain issues. I think with the current administration and the current tactics of the RNC it’s hard to understand how more “moderate” Republicans can side with a strategy of racist hatred. I think a lot of folks feel like rob — oh, let them have their rhetoric and use a victory to push policies you want, but that said, I don’t think (under this President) it’s done folks a lot of good. I’m too young to know, but I wonder if this has really worked in the past, for example under Nixon or Reagan? I guess the real question is, where are all the (non-xenophobic) Republicans, and why do they think that offending the more xenophobic types is a compromise worth making? Do folks really think they’ll lose elections this way? I’m always amazed at how low people stoop/pander in electoral politics, and to be honest I think folks do it because it’s easier.
Which is not to say the Republicans have the market cornered on racist rhetoric. I am frequently disappointed by the xenophobia and stupidity of the Dems and Democratic leadership, who, in many ways, take for granted the “minority vote” as far as I’m concerned.
razib, is that true, or are you speaking specifically of voting tendencies? I must live in an alternate universe, because the vast majority of desis I meet (especially among my parents’ generation) are Republican. They only vote Democrat when they have a serious problem with the language of the Republican party (e.g. during the hostage crisis, the first Gulf War, the War on Terror). I’ve noticed this with many of my (brown) Muslim American friends as well; the vast majority identified as Republican and switched to “undeclared” and started voting Democrat after 9/11. I got the impression that it has way less to do with liking the Democrats than it has to do with disliking Bush’s treatment of Muslims and his rhetoric.
Thank you! I think this is something we all forget because, at the moment, the evangelical movement has had a more vocal and prominent role in pushing policy than they have in the past.
More Inclusive, I understand where you’re coming from and generally agree (I also found the “Filipino…” comment offensive), and I can’t speak for ANNA, but I seriously doubt that she meant any double entendre. I read it as “surprising that someone who (presumably) has been ridiculed for their identity would then ridicule others.”
“I was making the point that using the word “Jews” to refer to any Jewish population is fairly common in mass media and that by automatically assigning the ‘anti-semitic’ tag to every deployment of this term, one throws too fine and too large a anti-racist net.”
I agreed completely with you there. I was just clarifying a difference between your usage of the Arab example and the example of the Jew. Let me condense my windbaggery here, then: While it’s true that not all people who do are racist, there is no justification for most anyone who uses the term “Eh-rab”, whether it’s socially acceptable or not. Most anyone who uses the term “Jew” isn’t saying anything offensive. My apologies if I’ve misconstrued your post. Consider my post a footnote to yours, as again, I am in agreement with your point.
“I suggest we build a lexicon of jolly and punchy labels against the Anglo racists and rightwingers. “How about it?”
Mencken once said the blacks could have field day disparaging whites should they ever get the chance, and I think they have fulfilled that prophecy. anyway, desis should be more creative with epithet invention, as long as it’s just “Anglo racists and rightwingers” and innocent white liberals never feel the sting of epithets. Red-neck is the scientific term–and they are vilified by all and sundry with few repercussions I’ve heard of, so you don’t really need to worry. There was even a white trash cookbook (featured dishes using margarine and possum). Other possibilities: How about “pasties” — I always thought of that word as those little stick’ums they used to use over nipples in films featuring topless natives–so the film would get a pass. But here in this forum I’ve seen that word applied to pale people. Not exactly flattering, but sort of descriptive.
However, we must all choose our symbols of oppression carefully. OK–diaper head is nasty, baby poo and all, and that guy is wing-nut bigot who deserved to have his knuckes rapped…but if the best you can do to illustrate white racism is to site 6 blacks who beat up a white, i think you have just redefined the word “victim”. It means a person of color who is undergoing adverse circumstances of any kind for any reason. Perhaps the sentencing is arguable, but weirdly inappropriate criminal sentencing is everywhere, regardless of race. The race element is controversial in the judicial system and deserves scrutiny, but the “Jena 6” are not innocent victims. There are people who have gotten 2 years for killing their spouses with self-defense not an issue. I do think sentencing for drug possession needs to be looked at deeply, for example, including the race element (but then I’m for legalization.)
As for the observation that “blacks [were] being left on roofs to drown” in Katrina. I recall seeing quite a few blacks being hauled up in the helicopters– was that just for good publicity? Maybe.
unless more information has come to light, these are the stats: “The state’s demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city’s population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm’s fatalities in the city.
African-Americans make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Other minorities constitute approximately 5 percent of the population and represented 4.3 percent of the storm’s fatalities.
Overall for the state, 658 bodies have been identified. Forty-seven percent were African-American and 42 percent were Caucasian. The remaining bodies were either non-black minorities or undetermined.
An additional 247 victims have not been identified, so their demographic information has not been released.”
I think a lot of folks feel like rob — oh, let them have their rhetoric and use a victory to push policies you want, but that said, I don’t think (under this President) it’s done folks a lot of good.
Yes I have felt like that way too until such rhetoric upended my own life. But my woes are nothing compared to those of undocumented Hispanic immigrants whose long overdue chances of reuniting with their loved ones have been postponed by several years. As if that’s not enough they now have to face humiliating raids and subsequent detention/deportation. I know these people – They work at the most back breaking jobs without a hint of class envy. I don’t think though that Bush himself is either xenophobic or racist.
Are you referring to my ‘ Filipino … ‘ comment? That’s not what I am saying. It should be clear.
Posterity, I was referring to your comment, but I know you didn’t mean it that way. Just saying we should not use racist or sexist language in critiquing someone else’s racist language. (not sure if that last sentence was convoluted?)
pastie, not sure why you’ve deviated so far off the point? Is it to purposefully draw the thread off topic and instigate? If not, then it would probably help to stick to the issues presented. For the record, “redneck” is not an appropriate way to characterize white racists — it’s a way of demeaning and dehumanizing poor working class white people. I really don’t think a shouting match full of racial slurs is going to help build any sense of community or foster the feeling that bigotry is inappropriate.
I don’t know if the mutineers will actually go through every comment here, but it seems to me that whatever talk-show guy you’re dissing has got a point. Maybe it wasn’t stated nicely, maybe he a total loser asshole, but he’s still got a point.
If a security check requires 80-year old infirm women to take off their footwear as part of the process, a young, well built Sikh male should certainly not be exempt from taking off his turban.
(But what about the religious sentiments, you say?)
Airport security needs to make sure that there are no weapons on board. Anything that can be smuggled in with grandma’s slippers can certainly be smuggled in with a Sikh turban. If it were Indian airplanes that extremists were targeting, and some random religion said that its adherents needs to carry around locked briefcases handcuffed to their wrist 24/7, I’m sure as hell not going to “respect” their religion. As far as I’m concerned, unless you open that briefcase, you can’t fly, and I don’t care what your great Lord Quilidofroophis says, or which level of hell I’m going to go to after I die.
It’s not just that a Sikh might sneak aboard some plastic explosive or a pistol. Let’s for a moment consider that no Sikh would do that, though you’d have to mangle history pretty thoroughly to claim that Sikhs aren’t capable of terrorism. That still leaves the problem of a non-Sikh disguising himself as a Sikh to smuggle weapons onto an airplane. How exactly do you verify that the fellow is a Sikh?
As for turbans looking like diapers… hey, you don’t like his show, don’t listen to it. And send him all the hate mail you can afford. You’re free to hate him, he’s free to hate you. Isn’t America all about freedom after all?
Well Anukool, you’ll notice that nobody objected to or took issue with his general position on the issue of security checks, as that is something that can be debated. They are talking about his using a racist epithet to describe Sikhs. And if it’s not acceptable to use racist terminology to describe black, Jewish or East Asian people whilst discussing issues related to members of those communities, why should people not register their disgust at his racist terminology, without it irking you? I mean, why does that bring you out in a rash? You are after all free to ignore all this thread, and its confronting of racism, if it upsets you so much too.
That still leaves the problem of a non-Sikh disguising himself as a Sikh to smuggle weapons onto an airplane. How exactly do you verify that the fellow is a Sikh?
This example is practically incomprehensible on so many levels. First of all, weapons would be detectable if hidden in a turban. Secondly, if anyone is going to decide to “disguise” themselves as another to avoid suspicion, they sure as hell aren’t going to choose wearing a turban! How exactly does that thought process go? “Hmmm. let me see how to duck under the radar, I’ll grow a beard and put on a turban!”
I’d imagine if a sikh or anyone else even touches his turban during a flight, big joe and mark mcgilligidy will be right on top of them with in .25 milliseconds.
In terms of religious practices being compromised in the interest of safety, I’m with you there. There was a case in florida where a muslim woman wanted to get a drivers license without taking off her burka for the picture, claiming that everone wanted to “unveil” her. I’m with you, you don’t unveil, you don’t get the license. in the case of turban removal, it should be done with taste, in my view. so take them to a private area, if there’s more suspicion rather than “he’s got a turban ooogity booogity boo!”
but this guys demeanor is, “fuck you, fuck your religion, and oh yea, its all for safety.”
“Hmmm. let me see how to duck under the radar, I’ll grow a beard and put on a turban!”
There is lot of published literature, and experts on terrorism who have discussed this point. First, the rule of terrorism is do not try too hard to go under the radar. Going too much under the radar is the first sign of trouble that will get you detected – like being dressed too nice at the airport, clothes too well arranged in the suitcase, being looking too hippieish, even too shabby. Anything too perfect or beyond the norm is the first warning sign. Also, it defeats the purpose of terrorism – publicity and propaganda.
All the 9/11 terrorists did almost nothing to go under the cover. Just act, and look average.
However, growing a beard, and putting a turban might not a bad idea (especially if you want all the focus on you and let your accomplices pass unnoticed)
Or since you will get vetted at the airport, and if you pass the muster, you can do what you want, once inside. You might even act as a decoy, or diversionary for your group of accomplices to do the act (and they might look like average Joes). There are thousands of possibilities. I do not think arm-chair SM commenters can even exhaust all the permutations and combinations.
Also, if you know that the turban, or for that matter jewish skull cap is no touch item, then you can easily put a part of your bomb or something really small in that could be reassembled later – in the bathroom, etc. Often, acts of terror are done in tandem, with no one single being carrying the whole operation.
Remember, 9/11 was done with lowest of the lowest tech item – box cutters, with all of them nonchalantly boarding the plane at the Boston, after a night of partying.
PS: My comment has no bearing or is in relation to the racist comment made by the shock jock.
A similar incident took place in Vancouver (Canada) last week. Another loudmouth upset the Sikh (and Islamic) community in this region with his remarks on Sikhs wearing turbans and Muslim women wearing the veil. AND, get this..he’s the manager of Brian Adams and Michael Buble!! Here is some of what he said: “If you’re immigrating to this country and you don’t like the rules that are in place, then you have the right to choose not to live here.” He goes on to say, “But if you choose to come to a place like Canada, then shut up and fit in … these are the rules. There’s the door. If you don’t like the rules, hit it. We don’t need you here. You have another place to go: It’s called home. See ya!” HERE IS A LINK TO HIS RANT (It’s only a couple of minutes long): http://www.cknw.com/shows/realitycheck.cfm?REM=42341&fld=2007&fle=Immigrant_Bashing.wma&wids=300
All the 9/11 terrorists did almost nothing to go under the cover. Just act, and look average.
I’m talking about the atmosphere post 9-11, on 9-11, it was pre9-11 rules.
especially if you want all the focus on you and let your accomplices pass unnoticed
Thats different, you have accomplices, it’s clear from the example, he meant it in the sense of the turbaned person actually committing the act.
Or since you will get vetted at the airport, and if you pass the muster, you can do what you want, once inside.
That’s bs, ask any person wearing a turban how “whatever he wants he can do” he feels after passing security, if you’re talking decoys, etc.. it’s different, then hiding weapons in the turban is a moot point.
Also, if you know that the turban, or for that matter jewish skull cap is no touch item, then you can easily put a part of your bomb or something really small in that could be reassembled later –
I’m not against searching it, as long as it’s done with a sense of respect towards it being a religious practice.
with this discussion, you are aiding the terrorists.
also, please tell me if i should use fair and lovely to look whiter before i board a plane or not. i await your memo.
I’m talking about the atmosphere post 9-11, on 9-11, it was pre9-11 rules.
9-11 is no benchmark, maybe, in your young mind as an american.
1970-80s had a series of airport terrorism – at one point there were 2-3 hijackings, planes being blown every year – done by Al Fatah/ PLO, Red Brigade, Libyan terrorists, Khalistani terrorists, and every other outfit, and their mother. Some examples – Entebbe, Mogadishu, Kanishka, Lockerbie.
That is why I said, airport terrorism is very well studied topic, yet every time, there is a new combination, and surprise. Successful terrorists never repeat a technique.
One could be a decoy, or one could be diversionary or one could be carrier of small pieces – maybe trigger chip for the bomb only, and others carrying other parts. Parts in itself so innocent that they pass the security muster, and yet the sensitive part is hidden in the head gear. Thousands of permutations, and combinations.
Once inside, you have bathrooms to do what you want.
PPS: I was boarding a plane from Spain in 1990s, a day after a Spanish plane was blown up. The airport authority asked me all about my stay in Spain. She quietly listened to me – then she calmly asked me, can I show her some receipts (hotels, etc.), and IDs (Graduate School, driver’s license) to collaborate my story. Since I had all my receipts for reimbursement, all made sense, it was OK. I guess she was looking for any inconsistencies, because even a terrorist would have receipts, IDs, and all, but might try to hide a part of their story.
I’m not against searching it, as long as it’s done with a sense of respect towards it being a religious practice.
I fully agree.
9-11 is no benchmark, maybe, in your young mind as an american.
err.. I thought this discussion was about sikhs in America. And 9-11 is certainly a benchmark interms of defining what became “eye-catching” at the airport.
Anukool, first of all your comparisons (removing shoes vs. removing a religious article, spewing racist epithets vs. responding with an admonishing letter of critque) aren’t even comparable. At any rate, I don’t want to really debate the security aspect of this topic again — there is already a conversation on this thread.
dravidian lurker, thanks 🙂 Your comment made me smile — I miss Rahul.
also, please tell me if i should use fair and lovely to look whiter before i board a plane or not.
why ask me? ask him.
Re: the comment about more whites dying than blacks in Katrina, that was because many of the whites who stayed did so voluntarily, didn’t want to leave, protecting their stuff from vandals, never left before, rode out lots of storms (my father is from Fla. and I’ve heard this stuff before). On the other hand many of the black people who stayed were STUCK (no transportation out of the city), and went to the stadium, which while bad was not the death trap, Lord of the Flies environment it was made out to be.
By the way, regarding the post on the NAACP, the attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who represented the wrongfully accused African Americans in Tulia, Texas was brown, her name is Vanita Gupta. Ya’ll should be proud, that was a hell of a case and she was a rookie attorney at the time!
he is no authority, maybe, in your young mind as an american.
coz i dated an anti-semite? she was hot.
on one hand, you h@te jws. on the other hand, you have a great rck…
Wait, whaaa?
nothing. just walking through the internal dialogue of dating an anti semite because shes hot.
so on our 1st date she was telling me about some VCs, who happen to be indian, that financed her start-up company (she’s a clothing designer). my mind must’ve wandered b/c the next thing i heard her say was “they like to keep to themselves” and i’m thinking she’s talking about indians, which was a little disconcerting since she’s white and i guess the “you can only badmouth your own” rule makes some sense.
so i ask “who?”
she says; “the jews.” then pauses. then says, “oh, i shouldn’t say ‘the jews,’ that sounds bad”
and i’m thinking, why the hell would an anti-semite go on an interracial date? but i guess i stereotyped anti-semites as being racists too. so i’m just as bad as her.
Manju, what your friend said does not strike me as being terribly “anti-semitic”. Maybe she is, maybe she isn’t. If that is what passes for anti-semitic hate speech now days though,, well I am not very impressed to say the least. The stuff that is tossed at South Asians, Middle Easterners, Hispanics, and even East Asians on daily basis is much, much worse, and with far greater consequences.