I'm actually beginning to think something could be afoot at the New York Times. On Monday, one columnist extolled the virtues of that fount of Western civilization, Hellenism. Tuesday, another columnist claimed freedom and liberty are distinct creations of Western civilization. Today, the celebrated Thomas Friedman offers up a laundry list of generalizations about Arabs that - from the keyboard of a conservative - would normally merit a Times editorial rebuke for ethnic stereotyping.
Among Friedman's observations in his subscription-required column Mideast Rules to Live By:
- "What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language."
- "If you can’t explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don’t try to explain it at all — they won’t believe it."
- "In the Middle East, never take a concession, except out of the mouth of the person doing the conceding."
- Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas."
- "The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation."
- "The oft-warring Arab tribes are all wounded souls."
My point is not to take issue with Friedman. He might well be right. But don't these sweeping generalizations amount to ethnic stereotyping of the very sort the oh-so-PC Times would normally condemn? And if it is possible to engage in this exercise with impunity, does this mean that a similar approach is acceptable when it comes to anything from airport security to immigration policy? Or does only the MSM's favorite foreign policy pundit have license to stereotype?
Finally, taken with the columns of the two preceding days extolling the exceptionalism of Western civilization, could the Times be moving away from the moral relativism of multi-culturalism?
Finkelstein spent ten days in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"And taken with the colu
December 20, 2006 - 07:28 ET by Indiana Joe"And taken with the columns of the two preceding days extolling the exceptionalism of Western civilization, could the Times be moving away from the moral relativism of multi-culturalism?"
Wow, wouldn't THAT be something? After all, a one-degree change in the rudder-setting of a large ship can make quite a difference over a thousand-mile journey. IF left uncorrected...
This COULD be just a "feint," though, like some of the other, "oh, by the way," stories that came out AFTER the election that went against the previous "sink the Republicans" mantra. An attempt to appear "fair." Although, THREE stories?
One can but hope...
Mark, the guy is a Liberal.
December 20, 2006 - 07:34 ET by acaiguanaMark, the guy is a Liberal.
Of course he can say these things and stereotype in print and paint a whole culture any way he wants. He's a Liberal.
All those pesky rules don't apply to him. He's above the fray. He cannot possibly be held to any standard because that would require a ...
value judgement.
Sheesh. And we sent you to the best schools taxes could buy.
:-)
ACA
But don't these sweeping generalizations amount to ethnic stereotyping of the very sort the oh-so-PC Times would normally condemn?
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
"What people tell you
December 20, 2006 - 08:17 ET by sarcasmo"What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All
that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language."
I want to isolate this one, because in view of the varied statements in varied languages over the decades by Yassir Arafat I think it deserves isolating. I won't say it's a true generality about any ethnicity, and I'm not any sort of an expert on Islam, but I heard something long ago in relation to Yasser's seemingly-constant BS that makes sense. I wish I could recall the source.
Anyway, the gist of it was, when a Moslem is negotiating with non-Moslems, it's not only "ok" to lie, it's considered a good thing -- much like when I get away with a bluff in poker* and make a pile of chips with crappy cards. There may or may not be some religious basis for this phenomenon (like I said, I'm not an Islam-expert) but whether it's religious or cultural it seems to hold true over time, or at least it held true for Arafat over decades. It becomes very hard to negotiate when the other side refuses, on religious grounds I'm told, to "say what you mean, and mean what you say!" Comments?
JMR
* PS Just found out today that poker-great "Fossilman" Greg Raymer is...wait for it...a Libertarian and is thinking of running for the VP nomination!
Taqiyya
December 20, 2006 - 08:53 ET by Barkhorn1xWhat you are referring to is the concept of “Taqiyya” – where a muslim is permitted to lie to non-muslims to protect themselves from harm or to advance the spread of Islam. A good example of this principle is hearing an Imam say that there is no compulsion to religion in Islam and then we see apostates sentenced to death in Pakistan for leaving the faith.
A related term is “Hudna” – a temporary truce called by muslims when they are in a weak or vulnerable state. The key word here is “temporary” as muslims have every intention of continuing the jihad – when the time is right.
When dealing with the Muslim world is it vitally important to understand what they are saying TO EACH OTHER and not the pay attention to the "happy talk" aimed at a Western audience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna
(Please note that the definitions above are “classical” in nature and – in practice – these concepts are applied “a bit” more broadly).
Wow. Thanks. I think you ma
December 20, 2006 - 09:00 ET by sarcasmoWow. Thanks. I think you may have also inadvertently shown what "Opinion Journal" columnist Rado really-fears about the blogosphere. Someone like me, with an admittedly poor grasp of some obscure subject but a certainty that Arafat -- despite being proven over & over to be a lying sack of $#!T -- was mysteriously popular anyway, can ask a question here & quickly get an excellent and comprehensive answer which -- though 100% truthful -- is likely too politically-incorrect for the "mainstream" media to print. Bravo, and thanks again.
JMR
Friedman
December 20, 2006 - 08:57 ET by notinstlHe may be liberal, but he does have a rich background and knowledge of the reason. While we may debate whether these comments are stereotypes; there is no question that he does understand the mindset of the region. And it's only from our understanding of the mindset of the region that we will succeed in convincing the Middle East inhabitants that there is more to life when you love your kids and care more about your future the hating/killing others that you feel have wronged you in the past.
Finally, taken with the colum
December 20, 2006 - 10:15 ET by Dave RFinally, taken with the columns of the two preceding days extolling the exceptionalism of Western civilization, could the Times be moving away from the moral relativism of multi-culturalism?
Somehow I seriously doubt it. The NYT will no doubt continue with their PC coverage even if it kills us all.
Given our proximity to the holidays (that's Christmas to most of us) it's possible the usual editorial watchdogs are off on vacation. When the cat is away, the mice........