Racist, or just careful?

[MVP]

However in America especially you have every race, credd, religion and nationality on earth represented. The US is truly the melting pot of the world. Do we have our problems? Of course we do but it is a shinning example, and proof, to the world that no matter your skin tone, country of origin, ethnicity, language, religion, sex... you can live side by side.

Sure you can live, but for how long? It looked nice on paper in USSR for 50 years or so. I am quite pesimistic and think USA is ticking time bomb as well.

 

[Siro]

So then why do people need borders, different countries, religions and different languages? I think because people like it that way. Because for some national pride is something what is more important then minor economical or political advantages. Slovaks wanted to be independant. Same with numerous other nations. We actually see more separations now then super/multicultural countries. See even Sudan coul not coexist as one country with muslims and christians and needed to split into north and south due to religion.
Lets raise theoretical question, what is more likely to happen in N.America's three biggest countries - some of parts separating or those nations actually joing into one big happy N.America? My bet is on separation.

People don't NEED these things. Countries have existed for a few hundred years. People existed for tens of thousands of years without that construct. And languages evolved organically through geographic isolation just like biological evolution. Nobody creates language to fill a human need for division. You're picking every conflict to somehow indicate a cultural divide. Arbitrarily, you assign Slovakia a distinct culture that could not exist with the others, but ignore the fact that Russia has about a million different cultures living within. If one of those sub-cultures were to decide they wanted to form a separate country (say Chechnya), they'd be selectively added to your argument. The other thousand that did not feel the need to separate? They're irrelevant until they do. Similarly, you don't see yourself to be in conflict with Canadian culture despite being part of Canadian multiculturalism.

In other words, if you have a culture and/or religion that teaches terrible things, you'll likely contribute terrible things to any society in which you reside. It has nothing to do with any fundamental barriers to cultural co-existence. Nobody gives a **** if you come from a culture that likes blood pudding for breakfast, or a religion that necessitates you clean your hands before praying. But if your culture requires child sacrifice to protect your harvest, you're obviously going to come into conflict with others. That's why I'm perfectly happy criticizing any culture or religion that I disagree with. People think they're being tolerant and reasonable by remaining silent. But they're just protecting rotten ideas that reinforce the delusion that different groups are inherently incompatible, instead of the truth that culture evolves through pruning of bad ideas.

 

[moevillini]

personally, I think at least a few of these responses were just intended to pull your chain One Brow

they've succeeded


My first thought after reading the first couple of sentences was that someone would confuse her with the woman from that couple who crashed Obama's party last year, and I was right.


Is racism the same as bigotry? Seems to me this is more of an example of bigotry than racism. Not sure why, it just seems that way.

 

[MVP]

Similarly, you don't see yourself to be in conflict with Canadian culture despite being part of Canadian multiculturalism.
.

Oh trust me I find lots of things weird here. But as I made my choice to come here and nobody forced me - I accept my new country as new home and do not try to change it to my liking. I do not ask for my "rights to practice my culture'' like some others who don't even bother to learn language or history of their new home.

 

[One Brow]

Sorry dude, I just don't believe everything I read. And I've found in these situations much more often than not there are two sides to the story.

So, there's a good reason for security to taunt her and treat her differently?

Well I don't know that's an interesting question. She identifies herself as an American but then she contantly refers to "you" people in the article. Who is "you" people - white people? black people? everyone that was mean to her in her life? everyone in America other than her?

Really, you missed who she meant? Do you have a reading issue?

Despite being a native English speaker who was born in New Orleans and a physician who trained at a prestigious institution, all people see is the color of my skin.

"You"s refering to these people.

This year, Quvenzhané Wallis took the world by storm with her staggering performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild. At several award ceremonies, reporters refused to the learn the accurate pronunciation of her name, and one reporter allegedly told Wallis, "I'm gonna call you Annie," because her name was too difficult to pronounce.

"You"s refering to this reporter.

A school child recently threatened my 12-year-old niece claiming, "I'm going to kill you Miss Bin Laden."

"You"s refering to the child's parents.

Etc.

 

[One Brow]

Your tendency to fall back on remarks like, we are just assuming that a "dark skinned person" is lying, either points to your inability to respond in an appropriate manner or that you yourself have race issues.

So far, that's been your primary reason for not accepting this happened. Sure, you have gussied it up a bit, but that's what it's basically come down to.

I have allowed for the possibility that this is a case were the woman was a victim of racism. It is entirely plausible. You however have never even considered that it is anything else.

What's the other reasonable possibility, that doesn't involve the doctor lying about it?

 

[One Brow]

Perhaps the amount of support your conclusion is garnering is indicative of how correct it is.

No. When the majority of support says that the writer can't be trusted to tell us what happened to her, then I don't think it's an indication of how wrong *I* am.

 

[One Brow]

I find it highly amusing that to you the "correct" response equals your response.

I'm just using bordelais7's term. However, that people can engage in racist behavior, without explicitly racist thoughts, has been empirically verified. So, it is correct to say it happens, no quotes.

 

[One Brow]

I do not believe it is a good examples except Switzerland.

Please, go on. Why do you think they are bad examples?

 

[Bronco70]

Sorry dude, I just don't believe everything I read. And I've found in these situations much more often than not there are two sides to the story.

So, there's a good reason for security to taunt her and treat her differently?

I'm not sure what that has to do with candrew's post.

You are taking the author's story at face value, without any corroboration or rebuttal. It may have gone down exactly as she described, or she may have completely overblown the narrative to elicit sympathy. Point is, you don't know. So stop acting like her word is incontrovertible fact, no matter how bad you want it to be.

 

[One Brow]

Is racism the same as bigotry? Seems to me this is more of an example of bigotry than racism. Not sure why, it just seems that way.

The way I see it used, bigotry is something specific to a person, racism is something from the culture around them. 90% of the time, if you ask people who act like these guards whether they have a problem with or dislike Pakistanis, they'll tell you they don't. It sounds like there were three or four men there. I doubt all of them were anti-Pakistani.

 

[One Brow]

So stop acting like her word is incontrovertible fact, no matter how bad you want it to be.

Her word is a personal account. I accept it on the general narrative because such narrative are common and ordinary. If you don't think a common and ordinary narrative is generally reliable, there needs to be a good reason why. That doesn't mean I think all of her quotes are perfect, etc.

Why would she write an article on a topic she hasn't discussed on the Huffington Post before, one so full of emotion, if her experience was not what she said?