RE: Bush's Racist Slur

-----Original Message-----
From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Osso, Gene
Cc: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
Subject: 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? 

	No, why bother, right? Just like the rest of the article, why bother
to have it make any sense or be truthful for that matter?

[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.

	You think you did. Obviously you didn't and I did refute with
examples. Didn't YOU read the rest of that paragraph?

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.

	Do you mean that same country whose bacon we're now taking out of
the fire with billions in financial aid, removal of sanctions and protection
from India (yes, that's right) in exchange for all the "hosting?"  
	That country we have to bribe so they do the right thing?
	The same one where public enemy number one and his cohorts may very
well be hiding out? Sounds like they're hosting more than just the war.Yes.

> 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? 

	Would everyone in Afghanistan know the difference?  Take a logic
class.
	 Do news people use "Brit?" That's slang. You're wrong again. It's
you who missed the point here. Again.

> Starting to get the picture? 

About your reading comprehension and reasoning skills? Yes. 

	See your comments above regarding "refutation." Now, who has a
reading comprehension problem?


> 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".

	Well said. To that end, where's your better half?

[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.

	I haven't heard of any international incident, have you? The only
ones publicly offended by "crusade" were the enemies. Everyone else knew
what he meant.
	The only person who keeps bringing up "crusade" is Bin Laden.
	Should I have sympathy for the enemies because "crusade" offended
them? So, what's your point?

> 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.)

	Didn't apply directly to him, huh. I suppose the headline on the
article is a figment of my imagination. Nice try. 

[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. 

	Does anyone? Probably not. 

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?

	Who deserves an apology- Pakistan? Pakistanis? -for a verbal gaffe
that had no malice intended, that was a simple human error? 
	Do we have to continue  being apologists for every little thing that
may offend someone? Please! 
	Come off the high horse and realize that this article was such BS to
begin with and the issue doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever. 
	Certainly not enough to label someone a racist! You can't hold
people to the standard of perfection. 
	While we expect much from our president, he isn't perfect nor is his
staff. 
	I can forgive him this most miniscule transgression because I know
he meant no harm by it. 
	This man, our President, has been nothing short of a Champion since
9/11.

	What are going to do? Run around your whole life asking for people
to apologize for all the stupid things they've done and said? Guess again
	It's OK to just forgive and forget, too; especially when no harm is
intended or done.
	
	Go find something newsworthy to write about. You'll feel better. 
	
	I have an idea: Write an article on how everyone and every group is
so easily offended these days.

	Cheers to you too.
	Gene

	ps: I still don't know what S. Africa had to do with this.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.