Props to tipster Rajath, who overnight sent in a link to this extraordinary item (via Wonkette) on the blog of George Archibald, a journalist who worked for two decades at the Washington Times and clearly maintains close connections there, since he has the verbatim backstory on the paper’s recent series on female abortion in India. Now I know that gender selection in India (and in other countries, yes, yes) is a serious and real issue. And also, far be it from me to impugn the journalistic standards of the Washington Times, which as I’m sure you heroes know is the brave and patriotic alternative to that noted leftist, freedom-hating rag the Washington Post, but still, it seems that managing editor Fran Coombs has taken it to that other level:
The day before, there was a brief discussion on the foreign desk about a pending series by religion writer Julia Duin on the abortion of girls in India. The Times had expended a lot of money for Julia Duin and photographer Mary Calvert to travel to India to produce this series.
In the discussion with colleagues on The Washington Times foreign desk, editor Jones said: “The reason we are running this story is that Coombs thinks all the aborted girls means that Indian men will be immigrating to the United States to marry our girls.” That is an exact quote, what Jones told his colleagues on the foreign desk.
Coombs has told me and others repeatedly that he favors abortion because he sees it as a way to eliminate black and other minority babies.
Read Archibald’s post for more newsroom shenanigans involving this character. Meanwhile, if there are any red-blooded Caucasians reading this site, here’s another reason for you to hide your daughters from the impending hordes of brown.
After reading Archibalds post it’s quite clear that Coombs gone completley mad. He should be locked up and sedated.
I read that article and then came over here to see if you wrote anything about it.
I’m white, I married a brown man (US born) so I guess it’s already happening (I kid, I kid). I think we should be far more concerned with the historical implications of large sex imbalances. Typically nations handle having too many men by exporting them out in the form of an army. They get rid of the men by killing them off in a war and allowing the survivors to marry the woman in the newly conquered land.
There was a great book put out by MIT Press a few years back called “Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population,” by Valerie Hudson and Andrea Den Boer. The implications are far worse than just us clucking our collective tongues at the barbarity of mass infanticide.
“So, white people, you can run all you want, but sooner or later – we’re going to hump you!” — Russell Peters
You never know – Talwinder Singh may be the first straw in the wind that portends a hurricane!!
M. Nam
I’m having deja-vu from my last comment. Again I ask, what’s with the moronic editors?!?!
He says that like it’s a BAD thing…
Apologies if I’m being overly facetious. I was alternating between laughing and banging my head on the desk when I read those comments.
Too late for me too, Petra! (Although my partner is U.S. born as well.)
I can’t even formulate a witty and sarcastic response to this hateful idiocy, it’s so far out there. Although it does conjure up some amusing visual images (boatloads of Indian men disembarking in suits with flowers, rings, and mustaches; hordes of white women leaving their dates to fall into their arms with a sigh; various musical montages ending in mass weddings . . .).
Most remarkable thing about Jones’ language? The plural possessive: “our girls.”
Of course, as we all know, the United States is a white country and “the rest of you are just visiting” (Matt Damon’s character in “The Good Shepherd”).
Excellent point, Preston. You’ve nailed down something that I couldn’t put into words earlier. “Our” means white. It implies that he wouldn’t care if all those Indian men were coming over here to marry women of color (and dismisses the idea that they would want to). He’s saying that women of color in this country do not count, and that is some serious bullshit.
(I guess I missed getting my Fran-Coombs-owns-you notice in the mail. Well, I did just move. But seriously, ick. I think I need a shower now.)
Preston writes: >>Most remarkable thing about Jones’ language? The plural possessive: “our girls.”
Good observation! smacking my forehead for missing it
M. Nam
I wonder what Coombs thinks of all the white American men who get mail-order brides from Thailand and Russia and such. Those durn foreign women stealing “our” men, and using them for green cards! They might even outnumber the Amrikan women lining the shores to await their H1B geek in shining armor. 😉
Seriously, though, I think I’ve heard about every possible group use “our” when referring to the opposite sex. Brown men “protecting” their women by controlling them, black women complaining about “their” educated black men marrying whites, etc etc. It’s funny how people can feel ownership of things like that. Personally, I relinquish any claim that I, as a gori, might have on glowing examples of the fishbelly white male species such as K-Fed, Mel Gibson, Pete Doherty, etc. 😉
Comment 3 – that line was the first thing that came to my head too. 😉
H1-M?
Please queue here.
The “our” meme in conservative media deserves some analysis, like the use of the phrase “people are saying” on Fox (from “Outfoxed”) to upload blatant conjecture into journalism. Note how many times the right uses “our troops” or “our borders” or whatever. Protecting “our women” is one of the oldest casus belli in the world, still in use today of course. Communal flareups in India are often justified by one side’s accusation that the other side is coming to rape “our women.” The subtext, of course, is monstrous, that women are the collective property of a group of men. In the case of the Wash Times (published by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon), it’s even worse. It’s not “our women” but “our girls,” so the raping brown immigrant hoards are pedophiles, too.
Just to go all literary on you, the notion of the virginal daughters of the white ruling class being in need of protection from the oversexed, virile dark-skinned peoples is a popular and abiding American trope. It dominates colonial literature (novels and diaries), especially in the captivity narratives (white girls captured by native tribes). You can hardly scan the historical literature of New Orleans, for example, without finding yourself waist deep in sexualized paranoia (and delight) about various rapturous encounters between native tribes or slaves and the dewy daughters of privilege.
The captivity narrative was revived with great fanfare when Pvt. Jessica Lynch (thin and flaxen haired) was captured by those swarthy Iraqis. Remember that the whole story of her rescue was fabricated by the Pentagon (who stormed the hospital with a video crew). Lynch was certainly “our girl.”
A double helping of wordword to Preston ITA on Jessica Lynch. I thought Lynch herself did as much as she could to avoid feeding the hysterical media frenzy that went on around her, but the difference in the way she was treated by the media and the military establishment and the way Shoshanna Johnson was treated shows exactly what kind of woman “we” are most protective of.
re: preston’s excellent point in #13: reminds me of these lines from “A Passage to India”:
Superintendent McBryde: “On April rd of this year, Miss Quested and her friend, Mrs Moore, were invited to a tea party at the house of the principal of Government College.lt was here that the prisoner first met Miss Quested, a young girl fresh from England. Until then, the prisoner had never beenin such close proximity to an English girl. ln consideration of the ladies present, l will merely allude you to the fact that the prisoner is a widower, now living alone. And in the course of our evidence,l’ll be providing proof of his state of mind. Before taking you through the history of this crime, l want to state what l believe to be a universal truth. The darker races are attracted to the fairer. But not vice versa.”
Amrit Rao: “Even when the lady is less attractive than the gentleman?”
Wow, awesome catch! Note that this is also insulting to the “girls” in question, as if we could never actually, like, competently decide for ourselves to date/marry outside of “the group.” I don’t belong to some jerkass editor at the Washington Times.
I was just wondering, should we as desi’s be more worried about female abortion problem in our community both in India and in the west then about the editor of washington times said in private.
Come on, let’s not be completely naive in our indignation! You may not personally belong to anyone, but endogamous, (or largely endogamous) groups have always existed in all societies. So the question is just whether someone who is putatively thought to belong to the ‘in-group’ can be referred to using the plural possessive! The endogamy norm is not enforced only in male-centric systems – both sexes can, and do, gain from endogamy, so both sexes use plural possessives to refer to putative opposite-sex members of their self-identified in-group. I don’t like an enforced endogamy myself, let’s be clear – but given that it exists, let’s not tie ourselves in knots over somebody’s use of the plural possessive ‘our’!
PS: Hi Mary! This is your second post I’m following up to today – what chance!
chachaji writes >> “I don’t like an enforced endogamy myself, let’s be clear – but given that it exists, let’s not tie ourselves in knots over somebody’s use of the plural possessive ‘our’!”
In using the phrase “our girls” (leaving aside the insulting use of the word “girls” instead of “women”, as Preston points out), Coombs is linguistically trying to enforce an endogamy that does NOT exist. It’s perfectly legit to call bullshit on his patriarchal, condescending attitude toward women and his simultaneous racist attitude toward non-whites.
Maybe it’s part of white privilege (never feeling a strong identity within a certain ethnic group) or maybe it’s that I don’t feel threatened by the idea of exogamic marriages/relationships, but when someone who I feel no loyalty to or commonality with claims possession over me, I’m gonna react. And I do understand that feeling solidarity with a cultural group (especially one that’s marginalized – although that’s not what’s going on with Coombs) sometimes comes with a desire to police that group’s borders, but I don’t think that feeling part of a certain group gives one possession over it or its members.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that using the plural possessive to refer to other individuals is whack (unless I’m talking about my sisters and I say “our parents”).
I see. So endogamy does not exist, yet we have races, and a definable category of ‘non-whites’. I grant that every category is fuzzy, so race is a fuzzy concept, and therefore race-based endogamy is fuzzy at the edges, but how does it not exist? I grant also that the in-group has expanded over the decades, for example, to include Mediterraneans and East Europeans in the ‘white’ in-group. But come on! American ‘whites’ constitute the world’s largest endogamous grouping.
chachaji, I think we’re using the word ‘endogamy’ slightly differently. Obviously marrying within one’s ethnic group is a practice that people partake in.
I guess I don’t know enough anthropology to know if I’m adding a connotation to the word that isn’t widely accepted, but I was responding to the implication that endogamy is “enforced” or required in U.S. culture. My partner and I would not be together if this were true, therefore I don’t see endogamy as “enforced”, therefore I still call bullshit on Coombs’ use of the word “our.”
Good grief! Would you at least accept that you and your non-same-race partner are still overwhelmingly the exception? I fully accept that there will be exceptions in any endogamous system. That is also logically consistent with the fuzziness of a category such as race. Also, it is not that far back in history that legal sanctions did in fact exist in many states regarding ‘inter-racial marriages’.
Also, in case it wasn’t clear – I wish more power on you and people like you! Peace.
Of course I concede that mixed relationships are still the minority – I just think that use of the word “our” can reinforce certain structures of power that we ought to be breaking down. So if I get a little tied-in-knots about it, that’s why.
Thanks for the dialogue, chachaji. Peace right back atcha. 🙂
Something’s amiss:
on the one hand, combs seems opposed to abortion (which makes sense b/c he’s allegedly conservative) for racist and sexist reasons:
on the other had he is for abortions (for racist reasons):
maybe archibald is confusing combs with margaret sanger.
This is EXACTLY the reason why conservatives are against “illegal immigration”. Its to save “their girls/women” from those savages from latin america.
There are many fake arguments are put forward to hide this cause (explained in detail by Preston), such as economy … they broke the law … they dont speak english … etc etc.
HA!!
Happy Friday night, Manju. Enjoy the brownie (points) you just got from me for that last comment.
Manju-you’re on the right track. Coombs’ view on abortion is not meant for public consumption. Most of his readers are pro-life, so he’s giving them what they want. If he were writing for a feminist audience he’d probably focus more on the gender angle. But he probably doesn’t give a crap about abortion or women’s rights. The issue here is miscegenation.
Personally I have a tough time believing either Archibald or Coombs. They both worked for the Moonie newspaper.
Archibald is telling us what Jones says that Coombs said. There is bad blood between Jones & Coombs. Was Jones trying to make Coombs look like an ass by ascribing the words “our girls” to Coombs? If so, mission accomplished.
Nothing wrong with giving the wonderful daughters (and sons) of America a choice between caramel and vanilla. You would think conservatives would support open markets
most people here are fair weather free marketeers. Contrast Lou Dobb’s go-go 90’s/pre-space.com countenance with his current “bug up the butt” mug. Free markets are best when India sticks to producing cheap cabana wear and sandalwood elephant pen caddys.
like an earlier poster said, if you want the real reason (at a wider level) for this increase in aborted females, it is because an excess of males is needed to take care of one of india’s problems. the excess indian males are not going to america to marry white women. theyll be marching west allright, but not close to american shores.
You’re joking right ? Dharavi slum dwellers & piss poor BIMARU serfs churn out boys to lay waste to Pakistan ? That’s not what Petra’s post was suggesting. The point of the book is not that Indians & Chinese favor male children in order to meet expansionist goals, but rather that states fearing internal strife caused by unmarriagable males will prefer to expend this surplus testosterone abroad.
Can you trust Archibald? He hasn\’t provided any proof on this issue yet, so it could be that theres some axe to grind.
Regarding the conservative-liberal issues:- {1}
W is no liberal yet he went out of his way with in his own party on immigration, and will most likely attempt once more.
{2}
To complicate issue many liberal constituencies African Americans, unions, Port Huron types(they aren\’t dead, anti globalization is their offspring and the \’dude\’ is still active(relatively speaking he still is the dude) in that circle), etc are all against immigration.
And this does not absolve India of having too many abortions. It still is an immoral act.
True, but Fran Coomb’s wife Marianne Kester Coombs is an “out” white nationalist who writes for VDARE & AMREN and is chummy with the BNP’s Nick Griffin. Do we know for a fact that Mr. Coombs has made these comments ? No, but we do know he plays house with a racist. If you have any doubts about my claim, I invite you to read her essays & articles online. In case you are wondering, I lean right and am very sparing with the term “racist”
“You’re joking right ? Dharavi slum dwellers & piss poor BIMARU serfs churn out boys to lay waste to Pakistan ? That’s not what Petra’s post was suggesting. The point of the book is not that Indians & Chinese favor male children in order to meet expansionist goals, but rather that states fearing internal strife caused by unmarriagable males will prefer to expend this surplus testosterone abroad. “
When I wrote ‘wider level’, I wasnt refering to the individuals involved, who are clearly not going to be thinking about such things when making the decision to abort. However, Nature’s purpose behind this is indeed the laying waste of Pakistan, due to, as mentioned, the unmarriable males.
Anyone read the series by that Julia b!!!!? Each article begins with some handpicked quote in sanskrit or from manu- to tar this as some unique cultural attribute. What a hachet job. If they were truly concerned about the suffering of women, it’d be one thing, but heck, this was just another bit to dump on those not sufficiently white. Perverts.