Re: Bush's Racist Slur

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Osso, Gene wrote:

> http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804
> 
> Is this the best you could do? 

Does it have to be?

[snip]
> This is an acceptable error for any American to make as just about all of us
> do not have any clue that "paki" has any negative connotation. 

We dealt with this "argument" in our article, or didn't you read that
far? In order to have a discussion, you have to show why our refutation
fails, not just repeat the argument.

In any case, 1) lots of amercians do know; 2) what does that have to do
with a supposed diplomat speaking in a hugely delicate situation about a
crucial, but unstable, country hosting a good chunk of our current
"war" and on the edge of a nuclear exchange? *Think* about it.

> It is logical
> to see how such errors can occur as we refer to people from Afghanistan as
> "Afghans," not "Afghanistanis;" people from Uzbekistan as "Uzbeks" not
> "Uzbekistanis;" people from Tajikistan as "Tajiks," not "Tajikestanis;" etc.
> Are those all racial slurs, too? No, they're not.

Compre "Brit" and "Jap". One is, one isn't a racist slur. So? That these
are all not racist slurs doesn't make "Paki" not one too. What kind of
reasoning is this?

> Starting to get the picture? 

About your reading comprehension and reasoning skills? Yes.

> Anyone with half a brain would have figured
> that out long before writing and publishing this entire bullshit essay.

That's because you need the other half to figure out what's *wrong* with
this...well, "argument" is to strong. "Blathering".

[snip]
> You failed to mention a fourth possibility as to why he said it: No one
> gives a crap enough to mention it to him, so he says it again. 

Well, we did at least by implication. If no one in his diplomatic corp and
advisors gives a crap about avoiding international incidents, then
there's a *deep* problem, isn't there? One would have thought that his use
of 'crusade' would have put folks on guard.

> So what? Do
> you really think that makes him a racist 

I don't believe we applied it directly to him, if that's what your upset
out. I don't see how it's *not* racist slur. Surely it is whether or not
you know that it is. (Check a dictionary.)

[snip]
> Until the entire world is on one uniform cultural and linguistic standard,
> this kind of stuff is bound to happen. 

You really didn't understand the article, did you.

If it's bound to happen, what cost to apologizing? Which the Whitehouse
isn't doing.

[snip]

I remember Bush getting a fair bit of credit for taking off his shoes when
visiting a mosque right after 9/11...if showing such sensitivity is a
good, shouldn't failures of sensitivity be a bad? (These aren't grounds
that I'd argue from, but I'm trying to show you that this gaffe was bad on
Bushies' own terms.)

There are lots of ways that Bush could have elided this. One is not to
have said it. Another is to have apologized. It needn't be a *grovelly*
apology, after all. A simple, "I regret I mispoke." What's so hard about
that?

It's entirely possible that this won't have caused any damage (I sincerely
hope it doesn't), but shouldn't the sheer *carelessness* of it be cause
for concern?

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.