Quoting Hil from yesterday:

And against Sikhs, because it seems like a lot of people can't tell the difference.

So I'm sitting in LAX this morning, and there's a Sikh sitting a couple of rows away. I wonder, idly, how long the whole turban thing's likely to last in Sikh communities in the US, since I understand it's an important religious issue but on the other hand it's a clear marker of Otherness.

Sikh boards his plane.

Guy in the row across from me leans over in a sort of just-us-white-folks way, inclines his head to where the Sikh was, and says out of the blue, "you always wonder nowadays, don't you?"

Much as I would like to be able to say that I said, brightly, "No, not really," I didn't. I did say, somewhat puzzled - red-eye, you know - "about Sikhs?"

Him: Well, you can't really tell. I think some of them are Indian.

Me: Um, yeah, that guy was Indian. A Sikh.

Him: How can you tell?

Me: The turban. It's a particular style.

Him: Huh.

Me: (wishes she were better at quick comebacks)

So, anyway, ew.

Him: Well, you can't really tell. I think some of them are Indian.

!!!!!

t /speechless

"you always wonder nowadays, don't you?"

rolling eyes really hard.

ouch.

In the late 80s, early 90s when I was traveling a lot between the U.S. and Canada, all the security guys doing passenger and carryon xrays at Pearson (Toronto) were Sikhs. I usually fly into Montreal nowadays and drive if I'm going to Toronto, but I sadly suspect that that's not the case anymore.

The last time I went through Vancouver (2002) there were a lot of Sikhs doing security. My mother recently flew to Vegas, and said the security people on both sides were far more polite than usual. Of course, being of dusky hue, she was delayed and questioned far more than ever before, but at least they harassed her politely.

Everybody here still loves Europe and the Aussies. But they seem to making it very clear what they're against without saying what they're FOR. What will they do against Saddam?

Once again, can I remind you that Australia and the UK (ie a country in Europe) are allies of the US in this war and have sent troops to Iraq? Personally, I don't think they should be there, but given that they are, please don't say that as nations we're not "doing" anything.

I understand it's an important religious issue but on the other hand it's a clear marker of Otherness.

It's a completely non-negotiable religious issue; like being circumcized for a Jew. Male Sikhs do not cut their hair, which implies very long hair and thus a turban or headscarf. (Some of the Sikhs at work wear a tight scarf with a big lump on the top containing the ponytail. It looks weird to me, but hey, not my religion.)

If you support the Bush administration's global political stance, there is still the question of how they achieve it. The Bush administration has chosen an attitude of "We're the biggest country, we can do anything we choose, and anybody who disagrees will be punished." We've threatened the Canadians in public. We've insulted the French in public. We've threatened the safety of Mexican nationals in the U.S. All of these are official public statements by Bush administration officials, never taken back.

Part of being a grownup is being able to disagree without being disagreeable. A civilized government says "We are sorry that our distinguished allies fail to see the urgency of our position".

We can throw our weight around without simultaneously insulting the people we're ignoring.

Cheney has been totally out of the company since 2001.

Apparently not entirely accurate. A mate sent an ICQ msg about the Halliburton bullshit and said Cheney is, "still receiving deferred compensation from them". If true, he stands to gain a significant boost to that compensation.

brenda ... your brother must be experiencing the same emotions as the majority of Muslims and anyone who looks even remotely Middle Eastern. Sucks, huh?

brenda ... your brother must be experiencing the same emotions as the majority of Muslims and anyone who looks even remotely Middle Eastern. Sucks, huh?

Very much like that, I expect.

Sorry to be so disruptive of the groupthink. And please don't think there isn't one--I remember a post in Natter, right before the war started, where the poster said that she couldn't sleep because "we were about to bomb hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children".

Now, did anybody call her on her BS? Did anybody laugh or ask her how long she'd been working for the Saudi media, or tell her to get psychiatric help, or even say what exactly led her to believe that the military of three very civilized countries was too evil or dumb not to target children in the first place?

Nope.

And that is why I have a realllly hard time taking political discussions here seriously. There's a few people, like Cindy and Wolfram and Gar and Victor, who try to steer the conversation from the endless rounds of Bush-bashing. And thank God for that.

But people, relax, chill, Bush might be gone in 22 months! And unless the war is a total disaster, which it isn't quite yet, Bush will win or not depending on what happens in the last four months before the election. That's what always happens. People who hold grudges or disagree with him won't vote for him anyway. And he won't mind at all--all he needs are his red states and a crop of uninspiring Democratic candidates.