This reminds me of an excellent op-ed I read in the New York Times shortly after that misguided Dane a few years back, depicted Muhammad most irreverently. I cannot say with total certainty, but I believe it was the renowned Nicholas Kristoff who proclaimed in the article’s title, that Muslims do more damage to Islam than a cartoon ever could. To the point, he succinctly addresses the core issues that Islam, unreformed, has neglected. That is while organized Islam’s reputation can withstand the satirical criticisms of Westerners - at times dismissing those criticisms as a product of nationalism, misunderstanding, xenophobia, and ethnocentrism – their own behaviors and reactions merely offer more ammunition to the detractors. When Muslims lash out violently against sacrilegious and insensitive comments, they play directly into the hands of the iconoclast, the satirist, and the critic. Such conduct does not go unnoticed; it will be widely publicized and disseminated throughout the Western world, consequently doubling any reputational losses Islam had at stake.

Trey Park and Matt Stone clearly are not the first, nor will they be the last people to venture onto this thin ice. Besides the Danish political cartoonist who portrayed the Prophet donning a bomb, there have been plenty of critics, such as Theo van Gogh, who have incited the wrath of religious fanatics with their polemics and critiques. Throughout the world, the standard South Park script is enough to offend well, anyone and everyone. Irreverent humor, which typically masks the Parker and Stone’s subtle, yet precise social commentary, acts as the shows lifeblood. After all people watch South Park for the same reason that people listen to shock jocks on the radio; the laughs and the writer’s outright audacity to say whatever they want draw crowds, in a way the cloaked commentary never could. In the United States, the First Amendment is paramount and the writers enjoy the freedom to express themselves in any way they see fit. Although this is one of our most cherished rights, it does from time to time, generate statements that are bound to offend, both Americans and foreigners alike. Others must understand that while bold words are said, words that may even be designed to offend, words that may have been crafted to elicit a belligerent reaction, that the law that grants this right give a million others to speak the words of peace, progress, constructive critique, and everything thing else. This is a right, that without the guarantee of the full liberty to say what one wants, a line could be drawn arbitrarily to limit any conjecture or opinion. Many will consider South Park’s storyline to be distasteful, unwarranted, and even blasphemous. Ultimately, only the damage inflicted upon Parker and Stone could ever be the damage done to Islam.

Without a doubt, Sam had a message to be reckoned with. There was a kind of forces behind it, that shook the center of my thought. Afterwards, it was an impossibility to refrain from self analysis, to reconvene without digesting the difficult point. If one was there and I should mention, thinking - a necessary qualifier - how could one leave the same as upon arrival?
For history we’ve decried the enemy, whoever the enemy may be, as tormented, sick individuals bent on our destruction. No one ever makes an effort to understand the opponent. Blind hatred is a much easier route clear of the debris and the tortuous curves of compassion. Complex factors such as compassion and understanding no longer get in the way. Perhaps the road is clear but it is a road to nowhere, a shortcut to destruction.
That is how we are. But now the tables have been turned. Viewing the world from the other side is a sobering experience. The German news clip was certainly important. I was taken aghast by their depiction of Americans. Of course everything was honest and true but the perspective was entirely foreign. Nothing of the sort could be found anywhere in the news in the United States. To think that we are the crusaders, the invaders, and the religious fanatics. We are the ones to spread the faith from the belly of a B-1. The Germans don’t come at us with the deceit of an enemy; they report as they see. I liked it because it wasn’t tainted by unconditional patriotism or enemy propaganda. Needless to say it can be shocking to watch radical evangelicals put on the war paint in the name of Christ. I’m not exposed to their craziness. They are a minority who profess views that most people find revolting. Now it seems ironic, to think, this whole time that I, as an American use the same defense as the Arabs we are so inclined to oppose. Am I no better? I guess that is ethnocentrism at its finest. Or worst. That’s probably another matter of perspective.
I don’t condone terrorism. I don’t support religion at the tip of the sword. I can’t justify popular compliance. I do though, after it all, understand a bit more why people can let these things happen, why most of us are no better than them. If only we would take the lecture to heart. Not necessarily to change our opinions about the Middle East but rather to affect our interactions with any other human. Perhaps if we just took a moment to understand someone instead of cocking our guns the world might be a happier place.

Jessie Jackson is clearly not in the Humanitarian stage of race relations. Pseudo-communitarian, as Sam said, is where he would fall. This assessment is in no way offensive, for people must pass through pseudo-communitarian before settling at humanitarian. Also, in this case, the label certainly fits.

Jessie Jackson can’t be considered humanitarian because his efforts are disingenuous. Reaching out to all people is noble, if you have the cause of humanity at heart. Doing so otherwise, damages your character to the keen-eyed, but generates an image for everyone else to praise. Such is the nature of politics. But does Jessie Jackson follow this model? His reputation for pontification precedes him.
It doesn’t take much research to reveal Jackson’s character. Before extending his hand in cooperation to Appalachian whites, he’s extensively interacted with other peoples. Respectfully in the past, Jackson has referred to Jews as “Hymies” and New York as “Hymie Town,” a true testament to his racial diplomacy. Even regarding his position of leadership in the black community Jackson reveals his opportunism. He audibly decried Obama for “speaking down to black people,”( perhaps code for not loud or radical enough) threatening to “cut his nuts out.” Certainly the hallmark of a great leader.

See, Jackson is about appearing to care while not actually accomplishing much anything at all. He has hit the mark time and time again. Instead of seriously evaluating the disparaging state of many urban black communities, instead of promoting action or policy that would improve inner-city education, instead of preaching of the value of education, he makes outlandish remarks of the great white bigot keeping everyone down. To show how truly ridiculous his claims have been in the past, Jackson has condemned the White Ranger of Power Rangers for promoting white power. Really? And none of the aforementioned problems took precedence over this?
If Jackson cared more about the people he claims to represent and less about fame, power, and money, I’d be commending him here instead. Unfortunately he behaves differently. He can’t truly be called humanitarian.

Sam used the LL Bean catalog as an example of how someone in the immersion stage would gawk at the depictions of black people. You know this is true. Blacks acting in such a way are considered “white.” They are traitors or they have abandoned their true heritage. All this bullshit comes from those who expect their race to behave a certain way. It is absolutely unacceptable for a black family to where nice clothing? Shorts? Really, I mean who is the one confiding a group of people to a box now. That is the stuff of the immersion stage coming from people a little to obsessed with themselves.

It’s pretty easy to tell the difference between Asians and Asian Americans. Of course there are differences in appearance as exists between Africans and African Americans, not to mention white Americans and their European counterparts. Verbally these individuals are described as ethnic looking and of course this is purely from our perspective. Appearances aside, Asians and Asian Americans possess different mannerisms due to their place of origin. Asian Americans are Americans, I’d say first and foremost. This is not to diminish ethnic heritage, but rather place emphasis on the shared characteristics of Asians Americans, African Americans, European Americans, and anyone else who could possibly enter the gamut. Despite discrepancies in outward appearance, we all share values, mannerisms, ideals, and lifestyles with one another. In that way Asian Americans share more in common and can relate more to other Americans more so than native Asians. Of course Asian Americans can practice similar customs as Asians, just as any other immigrant group (and that’s about everyone) will carry on the traditions of their ancestral homeland. Overtime however, customs transform in little ways that eventually make them distinct. Holidays, religious ceremonies, garments, food, and other aspects of the homeland cultured gradually become Americanized. Just try to order American Chinese food in China.

An original population can produce many subgroups, which will diverge when separated. This phenomena is true for any split population and is easily observable throughout the world. Separate gene pools produces groups with different external features. This contributes why African Americans look different than African Caribbeans, Asian Americans look different than Asians, and German Americans will look different than Germans. Regionally dialects and accents form to match the prevailing characteristics of the subgroup. Americans have become uniquely American developing our own features and characteristics which are shared among citizens with spurious differences.

Asians, those born and raised in Asia, though I should say more particularly the Far East, certainly can become Americans. Achieving this status is more than a routine legal process. To be an American is an idea. Conflicting perspectives consistently arise and our debates are often intense but the principles of egalitarianism, liberty, and justice are the undertones. And for those who espouse differently, even the native born “traditional full blooded” Americans, have lost their grip on our unity. Assimilation is also part of the process. For Asian Americans who are born in America, this is invisible and natural. They are raised in this environment and consequently participated in our shared culture. For immigrants assimilation is tangible. The things that make Americans American will be more visible to you than they will be to Americans because as Sam said, only do you truly understand your culture when you view another. Before then, culture is often assumed to be just life.

Thank you Sam for posting this.

I think students should be required to watch this clip before any discussion of the term “political correctness.” Indeed this demonstrated fully and to an otherwise unimaginable extent within the timeframe, the malady of political correctness and how its application hinders, not heals the our racial wounds. The journalist, and I use this term with unadulterated hesitancy, for her performance deserves no noble title, displays political correctness at its finest (ugliest), extolling the guest speakers at every moment, failing to pursue an intelligent discourse, and shattering any chance of progress. This news segment should not be called an interview, but rather a metaphorical blow job that leaves any self respecting viewing grasping his or her stomach, in a futile attempt to avoid vomiting. No more blatant and insincere meeting could have taken place, should all the world’s schmoozers, politicians, and car salesmen congregated to do just that, though I know someone will prove me wrong.

Amidst the hollow banter you can see that the chosen road leads nowhere. Should this take place a million times, humanity would not be a single step closer to a solution, nigh it would find itself confounded to defeat. Still we have exclusively adopted this approach as a means of curing our environment of racism. The entire process works as follows. A few ignorant radicals publically and anonymously express their racism. In response, ethnic support groups in defense of the target decry racism. Soon other organizations join the war on racism, who compete for (in)fame(y) and attention with their peers. Before long, racism is being uncovered everywhere. It is behind every tree and under every rock. Even seemingly innocuous activities have become tainted with malicious racial undertones. The media jumps on board to do lip service to the victims, because race makes a good story. It always has and it always will. The airwaves become saturated with pundits explaining to the world that we all hate each other and the so-called journalists (really “professional communicators” or whatever bullshit they are calling it these days, in actuality they have a nice voice and a pretty face) use political correctness as a guide book for conducting interviews, consequently prohibiting the audience from obtaining anything useful. Racism is gold to the modern media; it would never want the problem to be cured, for a greedy doctor would never rehabilitate the sick, to only find himself unemployed.

Nevertheless racism represents humans at their worst. Latent prejudice follows closely behind. But you must understand this: the guest speakers are only the flip side of the coin. They represent a group who is unwilling to participate in the solution. Everything to them is made of racism and thus cannot be utilized, developed, or communicated with. For example, the student refused to participate in the teach-in because it was university sponsored. This must be a “small price” to pay for progress, but I ask too much, since doing so from his perspective, would only admit that the patient is cured. In reality their partnership wouldn’t expel racism from planet Earth, but symbolic protest does reinforce the idea that it is ever present. For him and his constituents that is risky business, since we all know a healthy man means no business.

The real tragedy is that the events portrayed in the short undercover film are not isolated incidents; they represent normal human behavior throughout history. People have abstained from defending one another for many reasons including but not limited to apathy, acceptance, or fear of involvement - not one of which justifies their actions. To the student whose words, that I gather by the comments I’ve read, have been repeatedly censured, I tell you silence is a crime.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

We should take the advice of the old adage to heart. After watching the first video, it was clear to me that the speaker expressed my sentiments exactly. By remaining mute, one subtly voices acceptance of the situation. A young women is torn apart by the words of an ignorant shopkeeper and the taciturn silently applaud. You just cannot hear the clapping over the victim’s crying. In this way, the self proclaimed innocent bystander is guilty. He is complicit, for he allowed a gross injustice to go unchallenged. If you find yourself internally justifying complaisance, by the so-called washing your hands of blood, know that these stains can’t be removed.

Martin Niewmoeller poignantly said:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I say, let the hate spread like wildfire and no one will be there to save you when your house is burning.

Now, I will finally address your point. You are absolutely correct that Americans need to become self learners. Overall, we fall embarrassingly short of the mark of what you might call global awareness. According to a CNN study 47% of Americans could not locate the Indian subcontinent on a map of Asia. Even more disheartening, fewer than 3 0% of Americans believe that geographical knowledge is important. That means Americans aren’t just clueless when it comes to global awareness, they have no desire to learn! I wouldn’t believe for a second that college students are immune to this affliction. Sam should administer a geography quiz one day.

I don’t like the excuse though, that we can’t criticize other cultures simply because the evil that we attribute to them, is only espoused by a small percentage of the population. Why are the radicals words heard so loudly? The average person does nothing, that is why. By our own conclusions, they are just as guilty. Certainly I don’t advocate nor do I vindicate bigotry. Though I am also opposed to foreign cultural acceptance of otherwise intolerable behavior.

You see a lot of old white men clinching with their decrepit hands at what little ground they have left in the gay marriage debate. The public is constantly, though sluggishly shifting its opinion toward opening the institution of marriage to gay couples and this frightens the traditionalists who yearn for the good ol days of yonder. Back then, no one gave the homosexual case any credence; their grievances were systematically dismissed. With time, conventional public discourse against gay marriage; that is, claiming society wasn’t ready for such a dramatic change or that it just wasn’t “natural” started to fall to the way side for fear of being labeled as a bigot. To fill the rhetorical void came that unequivocal, consistent guide of life, love, and crusade waging: the Bible.

I don’t think all people who oppose gay marriage do so because of the Bible. For many the Bible provides divine confirmation of their disposition instead of the only reason. In any case, the gay marriage progressive movement has gained enough momentum for many opponents to retreat to safer territory. That is why we now engage in the Marriage vs. Civil Union debate. This is a new battleground.
At least we made progress. What gay rights opponents don’t know is that by conceding that gays deserve Civil Unions they let the train slip loose and runaway down the track. Otherwise they’ll have to settle with the bigotry label for knowingly obstructing people’s rights and happiness. This stems from the lack of knowledge surrounding legal marriage and the misconception that marriage can only exist within the auspices of religion.

My first point: Civil Unions and Marriage are NOT legally equivalent. Civil Unions do provide some rights to gay couples but still have a long way to go. Marriages allow partners to receive federal benefits such as filing joint tax returns. Civil Unions do not. Marriages offer a path to citizenship. Civil Unions do not. Marriages performed in one state are recognized elsewhere despite differences in state marriage laws. By contrast some states will not recognize civil unions granted elsewhere. Other differences exist and this goes to show that by only offering gays civil unions as consolation for years of activism, you are treating them as inferior citizens. As for marriage being solely a religious institution or sacrament, this is totally ridiculous. Even suggesting this notion conjures a thousand sticky questions. Whose religion do we use to define marriage? Can we have inter-religious marriages? Can secularists marry? What about separation of church and state. I leave those more inclined to believe the more illucid aspects of their faith to ponder those points. In the meantime back in reality however, marriage is used as a legal contract to grant rights to partners. By placing gays in another category you steal their rights away and dehumanize a sizable demographic.

Granted Bauer has no silver tongue. He probably doesn’t have much wit about him either. And while South Carolina’s poverty likely has quite a lot to do with their propensity to elect leaders of Bauer’s caliber the reality still exists: welfare sucks.

Imagine paying people money to do nothing. The entire idea seems economically and socially absurd. But we still do it. I’m just still trying to rationalize why.

Let’s survey the welfare recipient population for a moment. The first thing to do is rule out people who are collecting disability or other monetary reparations for work related injuries in addition to government payments to keep these individuals afloat. Those who are incapable of working because of disabilities or other injuries obviously can’t be held at fault for their condition and unemployment. In this case welfare spending is justified. Recipient’s capable of working are an entirely different story. These recipients either can’t find work or choose not to work. For those who won’t work, why should we reward them? For those who can’t find a job, we should enable them to seek employment, instead of simply writing them a check.

A dearth of jobs should be combated with an influx of government employment. Instead of giving the food away for free, you should make the dog do tricks. Alright, sorry, I couldn’t resist extending Bauer’s metaphor. As tactless as it was, this parallel still holds. The point here is that people shouldn’t be degraded to animals in political talk nor should we give away money for free. For this reason, the government should provide public service unskilled labor to those in need of work. Now the poor and unemployed get jobs with living wages and work gets done. Unemployment is solved and the country benefits in a variety of ways including conservation, beautification, construction of national infrastructure, and other aspects of the public domain. Roosevelt utilized a similar idea to fight the depression and we can use it today.

You make a good point about the government sponsored housing projects in Philly. Driving by these developments, it’s easy to see that when they are newly constructed, they are relatively nice looking buildings, providing modest, yet all the essential accommodations. Sure, they’re no mansions and the architecture isn’t exactly the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, but they are clearly not these horrifying structures or shanties. It is only after the tenets move in does the neighborhood, both literally and figuratively, fall to pieces. Projects are now synonymous with crime, drug use, and listlessness. I’m not here to scold the individual; it’s the community that deserves the real reproach.

I’m responding to all three of your posts just to be clear here. In Part 1 you say that the whole point of the census is to count the current number of citizens. Well, I’m correcting you. That is the main point and surely the most important point but it isn’t the whole point. Demographers, statisticians, and a plethora of other individuals and institutions are looking to analyze, capitalize, disseminate, and distort the census data. Besides race, income, living conditions, and religion are among the other information that the census bureau collects. In spite of this, obtaining a head count for congressional reapportionment and total population, as you have said, remains the primary purpose of the census.

Negro has long since fallen out of style and merely lingers in the lexicon of our nation’s elderly. Colloquial usage by anyone under 60 has virtually vanished. Negro however, is not an offensive word – it’s just an old word. The word carries with it no negative connotation to any straight thinking person. Those that lash out as a reaction to its infrequent usage under the pretense of racism are simply looking to be insulted. Negro’s presence on the census form should persist with the life of the word, if not for any other reason, simply for bolstering statistical confidence (as Sam said, some people may not select black in the absence of negro).

Why do we collect race related information on the census questionnaire? As I’ve said for statistical reasons; people just want to know the nation’s demographics. Though I can see your point. We are all, ultimately and chiefly Americans. Whatever visual or titular differences we observe are covered by the shadow of this fact. As diverse as American culture is, we all share commonalities with each other on a grand scale. They aren’t always immediately obvious because we’ve adjusted our perceptions accommodate that fact.
So maybe you are right. The article asserts that the census influences our collective thought on race. It states that black wasn’t even mentioned early on, that distinctions were made between Chinese/Japanese immigrants yet not Irish and other European immigrants, that odd terminology was crafted to delineate mixed race citizens from the rest of the so-called pure race. Perhaps the census could take the lead in 2020 and eliminate the race portion of the questionnaire altogether. Imagine what that would do. I like the question you pose.

In the meantime, don’t hold your breath. We have become so entrenched in the idea of race that it would be nothing short of a monumental task to climb out. Politically speaking, the concept is gold, as I presume you’d agree – and I haven’t ever heard of anyone throwing away gold.

Banning things we don’t like seems to be in style these days. France may be the latest country to jump on the bandwagon but it certainly has set no precedent and it is not likely the last one to carry on this reproachable tradition. It must be globalization; our bad habits are starting to rub off on each other and few are immune. I need not recite the litany of offenses stemming from much of the Arab world and greater Islamdom. Look to the east and it’s hard to miss the crimes of China and North Korea. But what do we see when we turn to the west.

That’s what I’ll be talking about to those of you (aka TA) who will be reading this. News makes its way across the pond that France is stomping on personal expression, religion, and several other rights simultaneously and frankly we all are shocked. A government takes away a simple right of its citizens for little to no reason at all. It makes them uncomfortable perhaps? It diverges from standard cultural practice? That very mentality strikes me as barbaric. This seed produces no fruit; it bears the thorns of usurpation and oppression. As of now this contemptible practice may only apply to clothing (with no intention to downplay this) but it can easily be extended to any other right, as commonplace or unorthodox as society may consider it. It’s crazy. It’s the kind of thing we would never want to take home to America.

Except we already have. Unlike France, what we did wasn’t just talk.

California calls it proposition 8. I call it an infringement of human rights. A population unites to steal the rights of a minority. It sounds absurd but it is a song we sing here too; the French have just translated the lyrics. If you take the people’s rights and put them in the hands of the people, they throw it away. The entire notion of putting human rights on a ballot and up for a vote is an absurdity that contradicts the humanist foundation upon which we were founded. Rights are well, our right – they don’t run for office and they are never up for reelection.

For those of you conservatives who are so inclined to deny others an innocent freedom because it makes you uncomfortable or would not be the personal preference of your choosing, remember that the same irrationality was used to prevent interracial marriages decades earlier. It’s best to change course or sooner or later you will be a victim of your own ideology. Ban burqas and berets might be next France.

So while France follows suit, let us set our own trends and refrain from such policy. I mean, if they are truly looking for something to ban, there are always Uggs, Crocs, and pink Polos shirts.