Glenn Greenwald has a new post out in which he charges that bigotry against Arabs is held to a double standard in our political discourse. He quotes as an example this outrageous statement from the editor of the New Republic: "I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well."
Wait...what?! Did we somehow flash back to Spain in the dark ages? Greenwald continues:
The point here is so obvious that it makes itself. In the bolded sentence, replace the word "Arabs" with "Jews" and ask yourself: how much time would elapse before the author of such a sentence would be vehemently scorned and shunned by all decent people, formally condemned by a litany of organizations, and have his livelihood placed in jeopardy? Or replace the word "Arabs" in that sentence with "Jews" or "blacks" or "Latinos" or even "whites" or virtually any other identifiable demographic group and ask yourself this: how many people would treat a magazine edited and owned by such a person as a remotely respectable or mainstream publication (notwithstanding the several decent journalists employed there)?
It wouldn't be much time at all -- and rightfully so -- which is what makes the lack of apparent outcry over this rather more frightening: Even without bringing Godwin's law into play, continued rhetorical dehumanization of a people group never seems to turn out well...
Hat tip to David Kramer at the LewRockwell.com blog.
Greenwald is wrong. If the author is incorrect in his claim, that makes him wrong, not racist.
By the same token, if somebody narrowly overstates the rate at which a certain demographic commit crimes, then that makes them a little bit wrong, not a little bit racist.
If Rush Limbaugh says that Donovan McNabb is being overrated because he's black, the statement can be judged as wrong or right. But not racist. Because to say that, you must assume motive. And that's unknown.
Plus, seriously, do we really think nation-building ventures by the US Government in arab countries are gonna work out well? I mean, really.
Jack, I have to respectfully disagree with you here. The example Greenwald cites, and the one you cite, are completely different. The editor that Greenwald quotes was attributing a quality, specifically a negative quality, to an entire racial group - in this case, claiming that all Arabs are untrustworthy. In Limabugh's case, he was questioning the ability of one black quarterback - and came to a completely erroneous conclusion based on that quarterback's play. In proper context, Limbaugh was actually criticizing the media for giving McNabb, what in his eyes was, favorable reviews as a quarterback because he was black - again, an erroneous conclusion because McNabb was one of the best QBs in the league at the time. The actual criticism was directed at the media and one black quarterback, not an entire race. Had Limbaugh implied that no black quarterback could play - as the New Republic editor cited by Greenwald implied that no Arab could be trusted - it would be a different story altogether. While there are instances where Limbaugh's critics have pointed to throughout his career that could paint him as a racist - and in some cases they might be justified in doing so - in the case you cite, you are correct to say he was simply wrong. The case Greenwald cites is something else entirely.
I agree. Completely different. Limbaugh was saying McNabb was overrated by the media because he was black. I am an NFL fan, like McNabb, and hate Rush, but that's hardly a racist claim.
Racism is the idea that a group of people are inferior because of their race. Rush wasn't saying blacks were inferior, merely criticizing PC. Peretz is saying Arabs are less trustworthy which is blatantly racist.
"Racism is the idea that a group of people are inferior because of their race... Peretz is saying Arabs are less trustworthy which is blatantly racist."
By the same token, if I noted that white people - on average - aren't that good at basketball compared to other demographics, you would classify me as a racist. After all, athletic ability and trustworthiness are just traits. I hope this shows the absurdity of the position. Your error is in connecting trustworthiness comparisons to a moral inferiority. Newsflash: people aren't equal. Realizing that groups of people have different traits - on average - is just common sense.
To Bonnie: I assume the author meant a statistical average, not every Arab. Again, I'm not saying he's right. I'm just saying it's a question of right or wrong, as opposed to racist or not racist.
Again, with all due respect, I have to disagree. I agree with your "Newsflash" - people aren't equal. People, as individuals are not equal. That they aren't equal based only on their collective racial identity is something else completely.
I also see no evidence to back up your assumption that the author may have meant a "statistical average" of the trustworthiness of Arabs. For your assertion about the athleticism of white people versus other demographics you might be able to look at professional sports and - while it would still prove nothing - be able to make a reasonable assumption. Trustworthiness is a completely subjective matter - one which the editor of New Republic made based solely on a collective racial identity.
"That they aren't equal based only on their collective racial identity is something else completely."
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Given that the MSM regularly reacts bombastically to nearly every pseudo-racist criticism of our sitting president, it's interesting that they haven't given a more blusterous response to these ridiculously racist remarks...
"That they aren't equal based only on their collective racial identity is something else completely. "
I'm not sure he's committing that error. I'm not sure that's what he's saying. His statement was very general and vague. As I told Bonnie: I assume the author meant a statistical average or a general tendency, not every Arab.
Now, one note on statistics and probability. Say there are two groups (normally distributed), and one of them is on average taller than the other (group 1 is taller). Then if we pick one person at random from both groups, we can make a statistically accurate statement: "the person selected from group 1 is more likely than not to be taller than group 2.
So, we can make statements informed by statistical averages. They will be generalizations, which means they are subject to uncertainty and a "degree of confidence" (just like polling).
Okay, I understand that generalizations can be made based on statistical analysis - hence my example that analyzing demographics of professional sports wouldn't prove that certain racial groups are athletically better than others but a reasonable conclusion could be drawn from it. What statistical or demographic data would Peretz have been drawing on to come to his conclusion? Trustworthiness is basically a value judgment - completely subjective in nature. And in the proper context Peretz was discussing the relative "success" in Iraq being based on the trustworthiness of an ethnic group - specifically Arabs. There is absolutely no evidence to draw from to assume that he meant a statistical average or general tendency of the trustworthiness of Arabs - even if such a statistical were possible on such a subjective matter.
I have to disagree with you here, Matt. Trustworthiness could be measured in any number of ways. Perhaps the amount of contracts broken by people of a particular group. Maybe check out kiva.org, or other microlenders, and see how many people default on loans by their given social group or locale. It could even just be attributed to cultural inconsistencies in how people come to and abide by agreements. The fact that he doesn't provide data is a non-issue, because even statistically supported judgments of different social groups or races still tends to evoke accusations of racism.
I think the truly subjective issue in this case is how different people define racism. In the end, I believe the mainstream description basically falls to "any statement made that casts a negative light on a perceived minority group." That means (subjectively) that people cannot be racist towards white people, and if you're analysis of a minority group is positive, it's not racist. For example, saying "Asians are smarter" wouldn't be racist, because it's a positive evaluation.
Personally, I think it's all bullshit; I'm just calling it how other's see it.
Post new comment