'Towelhead,' 'Retard,' and Talking Sense in a Global Society

Getting (slightly) caught up on correspondence and comments this morning, I found this remarkable observation:

"People are to [!] worried about the damn economy then our own security. I don't get how health care or taxes are more pressing then Iraq, Afgainistan, [!] Pakistan, Iran or any of those damn towelheads. But they don't appreciate everything the US military has given them. One of these days they will"

Being half-Mick, with relatives who are German, Filipino, Sioux, and Scandinavian, I probably can't understand how distressing it is to live in a world filled with non-WASPs.

White Anglo Saxon Protestants Don't Have a Monopoly on Goofiness

Then, there were the comments from someone who probably isn't WASP, including:

"...Your immediate surrounding must consist of people who are full of s***, but have you seen anyone at MASH making an unsubstantiated claim? I'm sorry I called your daughter a retard, but it doesn't give you the reason to start acting like one...."

My daughter, by the way, is "another ignorant Westerner" in this person's eyes: because she agreed with the person's views, but didn't express her agreement the right way.

Primate-House Manners and Public Discussion Don't Mix Well

Most people who comment on this blog's posts are sensible and level-headed. And are comfortable with the idea that not everyone in the world is exactly like the people in their social circle.

Others, not so much.

I'm grateful for this level of civility. It's not all that common online.

Public discourse on matters of intercultural relations and national security occasionally remind me of lively afternoons in the primate house, where it's prudent to be aware of arguments flying between cages.¹ Among human beings, online, the projectiles are words, of course. But the principle seems to be the same.

As dramatic and expressive as flying fewmets are, however, I don't think that they help in the promotion of the flinger's views.

"Towelheads" - No Wonder 'Patriots' have a Tattered Reputation

Louisiana's Representative, John Cooksey, did no favors for Louisiana, Republicans, or ophthalmologist, when he said " 'If I see someone come in and he's got a diaper on his head and a fan belt around that diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over and checked,' " after the 9/11 attack. (The New York Times op ed (June 27, 2006))

The more recent "towelheads" comment reminded me that people from the more 'sophisticated' subcultures in America may have reason to hold 'conservatives' and 'patriots' in contempt.

Someone whose world is limited to places like Berkeley, Amherst, Manhattan, San Francisco, and the connecting airspace, may never be in direct contact with outsiders. Understandably, it's the noisy minority that gets attention: and leaves the impression that people with a high regard for America also make ludicrous statements about diapers and non-western headgear.

I'm one of those people who, on the whole, think that America's a pretty good place.

Perfect, no. But, on the whole, over the decades, I think the world's better off for having an alternative to Stalin's Soviet Union, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and other more-or-less well-meaning efforts to impose order on the masses.

These days, it's outfits like Al Qaeda that have a vision for the world that doesn't include the sort of elbow-room that I think is necessary in a healthy society.

But I realize that, if people in the Middle East have the freedom to practice Islam - or another faith, or no faith at all - instead of toeing the Taliban line, they'll still be more likely to wear turbans, than baseball caps or fedoras.

It's one thing, when Islamic fanatics kill a man because he wore trousers. Outfits like Al Qaeda are expected to enforce a rigid set of rules: including a dress code.

But when a Red, White, and Blue Patriot - who presumably has a passion for Freedom, Democracy, and other American Ideals - talks about "towelheads" - - - That's just weird. Unless "freedom" means "everybody doing things my way."

An American Patriot Who's Okay With Turbans, NASCAR, and the Smithsonian American Art Museum

I looked up "patriot." It means "one who loves and defends his or her country" (Princeton Wordnet). Love of country isn't at the very top of my priority list, and I'm well aware of America's imperfections: but yes, I love America.

As for defending the country, this blog may serve as a reality check now and again - which is a sort of defense.

So, I suppose I could be called an American patriot.

It's not much of a choice, actually. As a practicing Catholic, I'm required to be a good citizen.

So, as an American patriot, do I expect everybody to wear baseball caps and watch NASCAR?

No.

I think it's great that we're allowed to, and that quite a few of us do, wear 'duckbill caps' and watch car races. But I also think it's great that some Americans would rather spend time going to a museum, go rock climbing, or collect trash along a highway.

America didn't get to where it is by insisting on lockstep conformity.

• I didn't like being told what I had to think and say back in college, in the heyday of political correctness.
• I don't like seeing Congressmen comparing turbans to diapers
• I don't think baseball caps are superior to turbans

Actually, that last point isn't quite true. I don't think there's any moral or cultural superiority connected to either. But, there are practical considerations that make one a better choice while playing baseball, and the other superior if you're planning to spend hours under a desert sun.

Want People to Take You Seriously? Drop the Attitude

Whatever a person's view on "Afgainistan," the Taliban, and whether the CIA or Al Qaeda represent a greater threat to American citizens, I think it's a good idea to remember a few things:

• People aren't all alike: We don't all
  • Dress alike
  • Look alike
  • Prefer the same foods

Deal with it.

Since anything online that's written in English may be read by people in over a hundred countries, I think it's a good idea to leave terms like "towelhead" or "ignorant westerner" at home.²

Flinging angry epithets may get affirmation from those with similar views. But the blogosphere is a big place, where you're read by people from all over the world.

"Enlightened self interest" has been used to describe quite a few approaches to dealing with the real world. Tocqueville wrote about "self-interest rightly understood:" "...Each American knows when to sacrifice some of his private interests to save the rest...."

Giving up a distaste for turbans is, I think, a small sacrifice. That's assuming that the goal is to convince someone that American interference with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and others in the 'Stans will, in the long run, benefit people living there.

Related posts:

• "Retard! Or, How Not to Make Your Point"
  (January 20, 2009)
  • The comments include the "immediate surrounding" excerpt
• Comment from "Iran Launched Satellite, Probably: and North Korea's Preparing for Launch"
  (February 3, 2009)
• "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business"
  (July 3, 2008)
• "Fanatics: Not an Islamic Monopoly"
  (November 23, 2007)

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

---

¹ I know: many zoos now have transparent barriers, not steel bars. But you get the idea.
² I think it would be a good idea to consider doing some mental and spiritual housecleaning, too. But that's beyond the scope of this blog.

It's Biased, Funny, and Worth Thinking About

I've said it before, I'll say it again: "Another War-on-Terror Blog" is not a political blog. I do, however, have very well-defined ideas about what is and is not reasonable behavior and decision-making.

I ran into a post on another blog last night that gave me a much-needed laugh. The blog itself is very biased, and makes generalizations about the Democratic Party that may not be valid.

Just the same, "21 WAYS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT" describes a sort of person that I recognized, mostly from my college days and my sojourn in San Francisco. You'll probably recognize the all-too-accurate definition of the typical dedicated liberal, too: unless you hold such views yourself.

Aside from the entertainment value, that post is a good reminder - to everyone - that assumptions should be reviewed and assessed once in a while. Particularly one's own.

Excerpts:

• "You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
• "You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
• "You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
• "You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
• "You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
• "You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
• "You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
• "You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
• "You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
• "You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
• "You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

"Ready to vote???"

That "Ready to vote???" is a mildly-scary reminder that Americans will be selecting leaders this November: including a president.

---

Source:

"21 WAYS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT"
democrat=socialist (December 30, 2007)

The blog has changed its URL recently, but the blogger apparently intends to maintain the old posts as a sort of legacy blog. New URL: www.dequalss.com/wp/.

What Would Constitute "Success" in Iraq: And How Could "Success" be Achieved?

I ended the last post with an implied question as to what would be "success" in Iraq, by the traditional news media's standards.

"Success," I think, would not be merely a total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The withdrawal would have to be part of a global disengagement of American aggressor armed forces, followed by the dissolution of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and (for the most part) Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard would continue, after restructuring, as an agent for change and ecological responsibility, saving whales, manatees, and sharks who are endangered by the cancerous human encroachments on their sovereign territories.

I suggest that this transition might be expedited by the adaptation of a tactic used with mixed success some forty years ago.

I submit that, should the younger and more attractive female anti-war activists burn their bras in front of the White House, this would provide an incentive for the largely-male American armed forces to accept retirement.

In such an eventuality, I think we could have "success," by the standards of the traditional news media, and all the (self-described) best thinkers of America.

Peace, man! Groove on.

"Liberal Fascism Explained:" This Book Should Get More Attention

"Liberal Fascism Explained" "campusreportonline.net" January 16, 2008.

I doubt that this book has received much attention in the traditional media. Judging from this review, it's too detailed, too accurate, and 'way too embarrassing.

"Conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg is tired of being called a fascist. In his latest book, "Liberal Fascism," he fights back against the term that those on the right are often saddled with, reminding readers that the original fascists leaned more toward the left."

"... 'I'm not saying today’s liberals are Hitler's cousins,' Goldberg said at his first discussion of the book held at the Heritage Foundation. 'They’re more like his grand-niece once removed.' "

What does this have to do with the War on Terror?

Quite a bit, in my opinion. America, at least, has a dominant culture which

• Fears of guns
• Doesn't like the U.S. Marines
• Honestly believes that we'd have world peace if unenlightened American administrations would stop bothering people like
  • Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei
  • Dear Leader Kim Jong Il
  • President Hugo Chavez Frias
• Desperately wants to control the lives of the less-intelligent people who don't agree with them (for their own good, of course)

The last point may not relate directly to the War on Terror, but the rest do.

Like it or not, every country, and all people, who do not live up (or down) to the standards of Islam as imagined by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iran's Ayatollahs, are at risk of losing their freedom: and, quite likely, their lives.

The attractive, soothing, 'you be nice to Johnny, and he'll be nice to you' approach simply will not work. Not when we're dealing with people who are very sincerely not nice.

One more quote, from the review's conclusion:

"Goldberg asserts that Liberal Fascism is different from fascism of the past because today’s left are pacifists rather than militarists; their plan is to nanny, not to bully. Still, he warns that this method can be just as politically hazardous.

" 'Simply because the nanny state wants to hug you doesn’t mean it’s not tyrannical when you don’t want to be hugged,' .... "

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Loathing the West: It's All the Rage

(Originally posted June 30, 2007)

British authorities are still sorting out what look like three more-or-less botched terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow yesterday and today.

Unless we're looking at a string of wildly-improbable outbreaks of incredibly bad luck, there's a good chance that whoever played with fire in the United Kingdom were what's euphemistically referred to as radical Islamists.

Quite a few folks see hatred of western civilization, and the United States in particular, as something that's typical of parts of Islam.

That may be true, but seeing the west as a decadent pit of foul licentiousness and greed is hardly an Islamic monopoly. Take a look at op-ed pieces by some conservatives and liberals in the States, and you're likely to see a loathing of what's going on in the west.

Although the two groups aren't likely to see themselves as having common ground, they each have members who are quick to say, and write, about how much they hate the west's loose morals, uncontrolled greed, unwillingness to be self-supporting, and indifference to the suffering of spotted owls. Sometimes, they even have a point.

On the other hand, I'm at least as concerned with the self-loathing that's been fashionable for the last few decades in this country as I am with this culture's shortcomings.

Posting this, I feel that I've thrown oil on a troubled fire.