portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

Muslims demand sensitivity.... THEY OUGHT TO SHOW SOME !!!!

So the Somalians are the new tortured saints this week, huh? Don't believe this horse-shit. Look at last week's tortured saints.
The story is over. It's yesterday's headline.

Everyone involved has begun to recede back into normal life insofar as they had normal lives. But before it becomes just another strange memory of 2002, a worthy wave goodbye.

Eunice Stone of Georgia is reportedly recovering from the chest pains that led her to check herself into a local hospital. The diagnosis was stress. The three young Muslim men with whom she had her now-famous encounter have reportedly announced they will not sue her, which is certainly gracious of them.

I wasn't there, but I listened to everyone who spoke of it and watched the story closely. And it's not hard to imagine what probably happened that day at Shoney's.

Three young Mulsim men walk into the middle-class chain restaurant in a Georgia town. They are dressed in what customer Eunice Stone apparently understood to be Mideastern dress. As for Sikh, Saudi, whatever, she probably didn't know. She probably knew as much about Muslim culture as the three young Muslim men knew about American Indian culture. Which is to say: probably nothing.

So they're all in a small southern town, at a local chain restaurant, and when the three young Muslim males walk in, the locals--Southerners, Americans, neighbors--look at them. Maybe hard. Maybe up and down. Who are those guys?

And here we might ask: Who are the Southerners? They are likely, being Southerners, Americans who take a rather protective and even loving interest in their country. They are painfully aware that America had, just one year before, been brutally attacked by groups of people who were young Muslim males. They left 3,000 dead--innocent people, civilians, young people just starting out. It grieved a great country. It grieved them.

The Southerners know, for they keep a close eye on the news, that there are now in our country cells of young Muslim males loyal not to the United States but to the grievances and leadership of terror masters. They mean us ill. A bunch of men allegedly meeting this description were arrested last week in Buffalo, N.Y. More are said to be lying low in Michigan, Florida, New Jersey and other states. They move among us with confidence, taking advantage of the freedoms we guarantee, and taking advantage too of our cultural reluctance to jump to conclusions based on a person's look or sex or ethnicity.

So the Southerners are eyeballing the young Muslim males. Maybe these guys are bad guys. They allow themselves to think this in part because one of the things Americans regret most since Sept. 11 2001 is their lack of suspicion. We're all very live-and-let-live. Before Sept. 11, young Muslim males could tell someone in passing that soon those towers in New York will go boom. And fearing to offend, fearing to hurt the feelings of another person, we'd let it pass. We'd mind our business, give them the benefit of the doubt.
And now we wish we'd been less friendly, less trusting, less lazy or frightened. We wish we'd been skeptical. Hell, we're the only nation on earth that is now nostalgic for paranoia.

But it's the anniversary of Sept. 11, and now we're trying to be alert, to look out for things.

So the Southerners eyeball the young Muslim males, and the young Muslim males feel the vibe.

And they don't like it. They resent it.

Here they had two clear choices: Try to understand the emotions of the people around them--people who've been bruised, who've seen their country take a roundhouse right from history--and choose to be polite and friendly. The young Muslim males could smile and nod, for instance. This probably would have gone far in making progress between peoples, for one thing we've all read about the terrorists of Sept. 11 is that they never bothered to be nice. They tended to treat the Americans with whom they interacted with Sullen Dead Face--the inexpressive look young men put on so it will be hard for you to read them. Because they don't want to be read. Because they want to convey an air of some menace.

They could have introduced themselves to the waitress, mentioned they're on their way to medical school. They could have been quiet, minded their business, chatted softly.

But they didn't bother to be nice. They wanted things on their terms.

So they took option two.

They sensed the questioning within the gazes, and they thought it would be amusing to show these stupid and uneducated Southern people, these dumb crackers, these yokels, who was boss. You think we're bad guys? We'll show you bad guys.

And so one of them or a few of them said the things Eunice Stone says she overheard. Talk about explosions, references to Sept. 11, talk about how Sept. 13 will be even bigger.

And Ms. Stone, alarmed, put herself on the line. She called the police and told them what she'd heard. She was interviewed by them repeatedly and exhaustively. She did everything she could to see that the young Muslim males were stopped.

The young Muslim males took off in their cars, driving south. They were stopped in Florida, where police closed a highway for an entire day as robots searched their car. The young Muslim men, the police said, were not entirely cooperative. They had attitude. Certainly in their interviews after they were released, after nothing was found in their cars, they displayed plenty of attitude. They were an unsympathetic bunch, in both ways. They showed scant sympathy for those they'd inconvenienced and alarmed, and they also inspired no sympathy for their plight. Later, a sister of one of the young men went on CNN to declare that this was the South, and you know how the South is: "It has a reputation of racism."

I thought, as I watched this: It has a reputation for patriotism, too. It's why Southern men and women join the armed forces in such high numbers, and why, if the sister were ever attacked by a terrorist, they'd risk their lives to save her sorry, sanctimonious little . . . Well, as I watched I got a little mad.

The South's reputation for patriotism may be why Eunice Stone put herself on the line, and wound up overwhelmed by insults and unwanted fame, in the hospital, and ultimately being patronized--We won't sue you--by the three young Muslim males.

But they were right about one thing, and it's a big thing. This really does appear to have been a story about bigotry.
There was someone who was prejudiced, who made assumptions based on newspaper reports and urban legends; there was someone who didn't like "the other" and assumed bad things about them; there was someone who was insensitive, lacking in compassion and aggressive.

And it wasn't Eunice Stone. It was the three young Muslim males, the young would-be doctors, the college-educated men, who thought they'd have some fun with their social, intellectual and moral inferiors.

And now it's over. The hospital they said they were on their way to visit for training told them to go elsewhere. Good hospital. Florida's Gov. Jeb Bush privately called Ms. Stone and told her he thought she'd done the right thing. Good governor. The media, which covered the story wall to wall, did not indulge in a reflexive "poor minority person is abused by bullying whites" narrative. They questioned the men closely, and sometimes sharply. And Ms. Stone is said to be recuperating at home. May she recover fully, quickly and with the knowledge that the vast majority of Americans understand what she did and why, and appreciate it.

As for the three Muslim males, they plan to continue their studies. Perhaps they could take a course in bias reduction. It would be nice if they were assigned a paper that answers the question: "Why might a people who had just been attacked by young Muslim males feel a heightened sensitivity and awareness in the presence of young Muslim males? Discuss."

Perhaps they could learn from Hippocrates, the father of medicine, whose advice to young doctors was timeless and is applicable here: "First, do no harm."
Plagiarist 23.Sep.2002 12:22

noname

The person posting this article should have mentioned that it was written by Peggy Noonan, and appeared in the Friday, Aug. 20 edition of the Wall Street Journal.

No surprises there 23.Sep.2002 12:53

Skullhunter

No wonder he's been able to post this stuff so fast, he's just regurgitating the drivel of other conservative cretins. Apparently creative thought is in such short supply among them that they have to "share" what little they have. The fact that this and other postings by Lamet go undefended when they're criticized probably should have been our first clue. How can you defend an argument you repeat but don't understand? I actually had some right-winger in an IRC channel use the term "moral relativisim", and then choke when I asked him to define it. I guess it sucks when people like Peggy Noonan and Rush Limbaugh use big words that they don't understand, and someone calls them on it.
So, any takers to bet on how long before this last Freeper holdout gets tired of getting knocked around and leaves?

I love Peggy... 23.Sep.2002 13:56

let her speak

I agree that this was published in the WSJ the other day. Maybe the poster is Peggy herself? Who is to say. Anyway, Peggy or whomever, you DON'T know what it's like to be hated and hunted while innocent. So until you do, keep an open mind to those who are freaking out, and scared (and yes, I know that includes us Americans in general, especially last fall). For creative types, telling a story to try to understand the hell more clearly becomes natural. Let's all open up.

wow! 23.Sep.2002 16:20

suprised

I thought volksfront posted it, looks like I was right :)


ps does anyone else notice the irony in the poor german of volksfront? "front" isn't german, if they idiots wanted to be consistent they might take german 110 or something, that is if their oatmeal-for-brains minds could read the words.

Lame Vali 23.Sep.2002 16:23

dizazt0r::blank1t

i contend that the persona known as "The Lamet Vali" is none other than--US Attorney General John Ashcroft!! HA!...oh--well, maybe you're Paul Harvey, i don't know. (just jokes)

a few words Lamet: projecting, generalization, stereotyping, insidious (and possibly demonic) insinuation...

>>'Who are the Southerners? They are likely, being Southerners, Americans who take a rather protective and even loving interest in their country'<<

--this is generalization. 'are likely' might become 'quite possibly are'. insinuating "Southerner" means that such persons were in fact "born and bred" south of the Mason-Dixon Line (the Maryland-Pennsylvania border), in general. and because someone tells you they're from the South, doesn't necessarily mean they're telling you the truth Lamet, so wording in terms of relating a story is very important.

maybe they do take "loving interest" in the country, maybe just the southern part of the country; maybe just the state of Georgia, maybe just a 3-square block area around the diner.

so you know the "profile" of a "Southerner"? do they go to college ever (like comedian Jeff Foxworthy has), or do they all talk slow and where tight jeans and cowboy boots? pls, define "Southerner" for me Lamet Vali.

>>'So the Southerners are eyeballing the young Muslim males'<<

--uh, if they're "eyeballing" them cuz of their "ETHNIC LOOKING GARB" then they could possibly be profiling (assessment based on general 'traits' exhibited).

>>'So the Southerners eyeball the young Muslim males, and the young Muslim males feel the vibe...'<<

--what "vibe"? was there in fact a vibe that was being transmitted? was the vibe only inside the heads of the Muslim med students? what the fuck is a "vibe" anyway (pls define)? would this be a 'love-good' or a 'bad' vibe they'd be feeling? was a Beach Boys record playing in the diner at the time?

>>'--And they don't like it. They resent it.'<<

--so i'm assuming it was a "bad" vibe they were feeling. now why on earth would they feel such a way?

>>'Here they had two clear choices: Try to understand the emotions of the people around them--people who've been bruised, who've seen their country take a roundhouse right from history--and choose to be polite and friendly. The young Muslim males could smile and nod, for instance. This probably would have gone far in making progress between peoples, for one thing we've all read about the terrorists of Sept. 11 is that they never bothered to be nice'<<

--very good point. EVERYONE INVOLVED IN ANY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP HAS CHOICES AS TO HOW THEY RE/ACT, GIVEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL INTERACTIONS. maybe the "Southerners" could have tried to understand that NOT ALL "MUSLIMS" ARE "TERRORISTS" and that maybe, if they could see that they were leering/staring at these Muslims, their attention might be considered to be "rude" (because maybe they are the type of "Southerners" who like to be well-mannered and polite--you know them "southerners").

maybe also the "Southerners"--and all supposedly "patriotic Americans"--can think past the lies of the mass-media and investigate the mere *possibility* that DUE TO FOOLISH AND UNNECESSARY US HEGEMONY IN PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE MAYBE THE MUSLIM PEOPLES RESIDE these people (who may or may not be from such places--hell, US hegemony occurs even in the United States) may have a legitimate reason to have "attitudes" with regards as to how others, or US citizens specifically, approach or treat them.

i'm not so sure that smiling and nodding (or as they say in the South, shuckin' and jivin') is a reaction that really does any good; one, the mindset certain people may not be changed by such displays of 'humanness' (sometimes people despise you no matter what you do), and two, as i contend, it may better serve a person (or all parties involve, in the long run) to just be REAL AND SINCERE with how they choose to respond within a given situation. i know when i'm pissed, i don't smile--maybe others around me could try to understand my foul moodedness? (yes, i know i could smile and maybe not possibly "stress out" others, but hey, they're the ones *allowing* themselves to become stressed). yes, maybe we can all take a "2 minded" approach to human relations and try our best to automatically see both (all) sides of the coin instead of just being reactionary.

>>'They tended to treat the Americans with whom they interacted with Sullen Dead Face--the inexpressive look young men put on so it will be hard for you to read them'<<

--or maybe that was their "this shit is serious" look and they weren't joking, in which case, it was also their "we ain't joking, you better take this shit seriously" face. i don't know.

>>'Because they don't want to be read. Because they want to convey an air of some menace'<<

--um, projecting?

>>'one of the things Americans regret most since Sept. 11 2001 is their lack of suspicion. We're all very live-and-let-live. Before Sept. 11, young Muslim males could tell someone in passing that soon those towers in New York will go boom. And fearing to offend, fearing to hurt the feelings of another person, we'd let it pass. We'd mind our business, give them the benefit of the doubt.
And now we wish we'd been less friendly, less trusting, less lazy or frightened. We wish we'd been skeptical. Hell, we're the only nation on earth that is now nostalgic for paranoia'<<

--this is projection; you seem to embrace a projectionists style of authoring. (note: also study "programming" as it relates to "social engineering" techniques for further insight into the concept of projecting).

i am considered to be an American and i've always been suspicious, but not of Muslims 8000 miles away (and what do you suppose Americans should have been suspicious of Lamet? why, if they didn't have adequate evidence--oh wait, they had the same evidence the US govt had for the past 12 years of "terrorist activity", silly me. why didn't the Americans do something about it?!!..or should the good people of America be asking on behalf of Lament Vali, WHY DIDN'T THE AMERICAN GOVT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? huh Lamet?)

ironically, some Muslims (reportedly)did pass on reports of possible attacks.

you Lamet seem to be slyly (you psy-op you) trying tweak the casual unattuned IMCer who, with regards to protecting their own thought-processive, may not be able to see through your shim-shammy *attempts* to reprogram their very minds. whatever. what i suggest to anyone reading you is to develop the message that is in opposition (or even contraposition) to this particular isolated comment of Lamet Vali and see how its meaning *feels*. EX: "now we wish we'd been less friendly, less trusting" becomes "now, we wish we'd been MORE friendly, MORE trusting" (of course you'd have to make all necessary negations for sake of consistency).

so pretend that you respect "the laythinkers" ability to think discriminately but insist (slyly of course) that "there there, it's alright, you just didn't know any better, but things can be made better if you--" (--harden your heart; begin to *really* live in fear; hate who you are supposed to hate; believe lies/believe what you are told by authority figures; give up your freedom; hate; fear; cringe; cower; submit; obey...)--is that the 'method' Lamet Vali, huh? it works sometimes; sometimes people who don't want to open their eyes and react unknowingly and animalistically, and sometimes people don't want to open their hearts and continue on unconditionally believing and working with the lies that are shown and told to them.


>>'The media, which covered the story wall to wall, did not indulge in a reflexive "poor minority person is abused by bullying whites" narrative'<<

--uh, if they did you might want to have taken it as simply an OPINION expressed and not gotten too bent out of shape. i take it that a lot of what you've posted in this article is pure opinion (and speculation) and though i let your Limbaughesque words annoy me, i know that it's better to challenge someone like you to a debate even though we might never even be able to agree on the definition of terms used during such dialogue. as well, you might be one who would choose to avoid addressing points all together, but maybe i'm wrong.

some media might have done just this--they're still media and you have a choice as to whether or not you agree with the views they may have or the principles they believe in.

are you now the Brainy Smurf of media critics? (remember Brainy Smurf of the early 80s NBC cartoon series "The Smurfs" and how he always tried to portray himself as an *authority* on everything, though he really had no clue at all and cared only about getting his egotistical nut off?)

if you say the "good" Larkin Community Hospital (located in Miami) that didn't let the fellas carry on working at their facility, would you say "good media" as well? why do people have to be "good"? is media that endeavors to question the moralistically skewed essence of 'America' "bad" in your opinion Lamet?

do you ever think about what you type Lamet, or do you just care about your "agenda" and not that you may not be thinking to any end which is worthwhile for the development of "better" (more loving, kinder, sincere individuals) human societies? maybe, like a nimrod, you just care about making a fucking point. (sorry if i hurt your feelings with the bad name calling).

>>'I watched I got a little mad'<<

--oh, you're "mad" alright :)

maybe the students won't sue Eunice cuz they can see why she may have snitched on them in the first place (and 'patriotism' doesn't not preclude 'racism'; Eunice can still despise "towel heads" and care about her 'fatherland'). maybe they themselves don't believe in PETTY REVENGE. maybe they would rather there be 'peace' (generally speaking, one of the primary reasons for participation in a religion) and they--not you--understand that such a position comes about by submitting the self to a "Greater Will" and not to the (often evil-leaning) human will, the will to war and destroy and to hate and to negate...maybe they learn the lessons of living in a shared world/universe more quickly than others. maybe.

>>'they thought it would be amusing to show these stupid and uneducated Southern people, these dumb crackers, these yokels, who was boss'...'It was the three young Muslim males, the young would-be doctors, the college-educated men, who thought they'd have some fun with their social, intellectual and moral inferiors.'<<

--how do you know the Muslim men might not have regarded all (or most, including said) humans, in general, as being equal?

there you go again with that stereotyping and generalizing crap. dumb ass. so did the Muslim males say that this is how they perceived the people of this Georgia locale? if not, CHANGE THE WAY YOU WORD THINGS YA KNUCKLEHEAD! you really do underestimate IMCers don't you Dick?

>>'Florida's Gov. Jeb Bush privately called Ms. Stone and told her he thought she'd done the right thing. Good governor'<<

--ironically, her vote in the last presidential election was thrown out because a black person in her district went by the same name.

oh god, pls let this article be satire on the part of "Lamet Vali" :)

links
-----------------------
about the hospital

 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-students091502.story

here are some "good" americans for ya Lamet

 http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/wsbtv/news/poll_threat0918.html

another viewpoint

 http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/020930/opinion/30john.htm

more opinion

 http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/frazier_20020918.html

crap, if you car what greta van susteren has to say, here's some transcript

 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63336,00.html

ah hell, more stuff

 http://www.asmallvictory.net/oldshit/001337.html

why 24.Sep.2002 20:38

o why

are the ones worthy of suspicion, the poor, the tired, the huddled masses, never anglo, never bankers? who are we asking is desparate, devoid of options? whay are anglo bankers etc NEVER in this class?