I had a friend visiting at the time the Abu Ghraib abuses started to make news. His response was, almost literally, "I don't care what happens to them after what they did to us." A perfect example of the conflation that underlies racist attitudes.

You are so disinvited from The New Republic barbeque.

In support of Matt's point, I remember that some time ago Hindu fundamentalist websites would post congratulatory messages every time Israelis killed Muslims. This doesn't necessarily reflect anti-Arab racism, since most South Asian Muslims aren't Arab, but the point remains that plenty of people "support" Israel primarily because they hate Muslims.

Typical American redneck racist humor.

For example, there was an article in the weekend NYT 'News of the week in review' about how Iranians often will say what they think you want to hear.

This characteristic is supposed to be unique to Iranians (who also aren't, you know, Arabs...)?

"On this view, opinions actually expressed by Arabs about things should be ignored. Instead, the road to popularity is paved by massive applications of force. This is (apparently) because Arabs, unlike regular people, never say what they mean, don't know what they want, and are utterly in thrall to the seductions of violence."

Well this isn't uniformly applicable. For example when multiple Iranian presidents talk about destroying Israel in the context of a need to acquire nuclear weapons, we are routinely assured that they don't mean what they say.

"American political commentators seem very attuned to the fact that a certain proportion of criticism of Israeli policy is motivated by dislike of Jews or the idea of a Jewish state". - Matthew Yglesias

I guess the reason I mention this is that I feel it should be the default for all sensible people, but that it is far removed from any talk of the middle east situation, and riduculously sensible people like our host even write things like the quote above implying that position is motivated by racism, and one has to walk on egg shells to avoid offending when saying it. Have I offended anyone? Keep in mind I realize how dire the actual situation is, making the ideal next to inconceiveable in the near to medium term.

The significance is that as a culture we've developed a hypersensitivity to antisemitism, to the point where critics of America's Israel policy are often accused of antisemitism, while no one ever calls supporters of America's mideast policy on their overtones of anti-Arab bigotry. Not all racism is treated equal here.

BTW, the email that both Matt and Josh object to is perfectly harmless and well-meaning. It can only be read as denying Israel's right to exist by an absurdly forced reading of the pop psychology suggestion that Israel might "move on". There are enough real anti-Semites out there; pick on them, and don't cry "wolf".

Matt is right.
Anti-Arab racism is the one form of prejudice few object to.
In fact, it is the one kind of racism even liberals can indulge in, no, proclaim proudly.
If you doubt that, check out the statements on Palestinians by most Democratic Members of Congress.
I guess we always need someone we can hate without fear of criticism.
Now that homophobia is banned this may be the last okay prejudice.

...everyone seems oblivious to the obvious reality that a certain amount of praise for policies that involve killing Arabs or Muslims -- the American invasion of Iraq, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, proposed American strikes on Syria or Iran -- is likewise motivated by racial or quasi-racial bias.

When Tony Snow (jokingly) thanked Helen Thomas for the "Hizbullah side of the story",  was it "quasi-racial bias"?

It's not that it's "new". It's that it's rarely owned up to publicly. Thus it's worthwhile for pundits (like Matt Yglesias) to start talking about it instead of pretending that the only reason countries like Iraq and Lebanon get invaded has to do with terror and "democracy promotion."

It's that it's rarely owned up to publicly

What bigotry/racism is?

What bigotry/racism is?

For starters, antisemitism - which brings us right back to the whole point of Matt's post. At this point I have to conclude, with all due respect, that you're either incredibly slow or simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

Martin Peretz is a racist, pure and simple. He is no better than any other racist. Wait, does that make me anti-Semitic?

Let's face it America generally is a country that defines it's citizens by race...Italian-American, Mexican-American, African-American, Polish-American, Irish-American, etc.  We are taught from an early age to "judge" people by skin color, ehtnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.  So why would anyone be surprised that any kind of debate like this would be dominated by these biases?

I have a part-time employee at my store who is Jewish and VERY conservative. We go at it all the time on every political issue there is.  But when the subject turns to terrorism/ME he feels that the only way to handle the situation in the ME is to kill as many Arabs as we can before they try to kill us...because he feels that based on the teachings of the Quran that each and every Muslim has a desire to kill us based solely on their religion.  No matter how much we discuss the situation in the ME we can't get past this point of contention so I change the subject as soon as I can.  And like my employee hates Arabs there are just as many people who hate Jews for no other reason then they are Jews.  I get a weird vibe that there are many non-Jewish/non-Muslim Americans (and I am not saying here per se) who want  to see this war between Israel and Hezbollah continue because both Jews and Muslims are being killed...but how do we stop people from hating?

 For starters, antisemitism

Am I to understand you to say that people PUBLICALLY frequently and usually and quite commonly own up to being anti-semitic?

Race comes into things but isn't ruling the current various crises in the middle east. Religious feeling and military analysis are both much more important. Huge numbers of Israeli Jews are racially identical to Arabs and would be simply called "Arab Jews" but that would confuse too many Europeans and Americans. These Arab Jews get no break from the Muslims and they give no break to the Muslims, Arabs or Persians in the region.

The US leaders are all about military analysis and economic analysis (oil and the money it generates). Oil money buys weapons. Lots of Muslim leaders are all about enforcing Islamic laws on the rest of the world. Biological race isn't primary.

Huge sections of Arab culture are virulently and openly racial -- see their comments on Condoleeza Rice and on Jews.

All told, though, race is a small player in the psychology of the mideast.

I think it is important to address the issue of societal racism vis a vis the positions and actions our government takes.  Whether it is support for the war in Iraq which has resulted in tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis being killed or the disinterest in the Israel/Palestinian issue resulting in Jews and Arabs being killed.  Too often Americans in general don't want to talk about the issue of racism in America...which is a reality and allows the government to follow policies like the Iraq War that aren't in our country's best interests. 

If you can't hate somebody on the basis that they hold and live by hateful beliefs, what are you allowed to hate them for?

And by hating them back wouldn't someone just be validating the other person's hate?  If they want to do me harm I will take every precaution to prevent it but I don't hate because others do.  I just say live and let live whether the other person agrees or not...

If a black man hates the Aryan Nation, in what sense is he "validating the other person's hate"? They're hating him for what he IS, and he's hating them for what they DO. Catagorically different motives for hate.

Are we allowed to hate anybody, ever? Unless the answer is "no", I think that the nature of one's beliefs, if you actually live by them, is a suitable basis for hate, depending of course on what the nature of those beliefs is.

LOL...everybody is free to hate as they see fit.  I try my best not to hate...hatred usually ends up being counterproductive to limit whatever might have originally angered me.  Hatred is part of human nature...it would beyond naive to suggest that we can end hatred.  But limiting how our hatreds impact our actions is a desirable goal from where I sit Brett.  Hatred is an emotion and is in direct opposition to any rational thought.  The action most likely to arise from hatred is revenge, which usually brings a like reaction.  That is what bothers me the most about many things that are said by the POTUS and this administration...they say things to play on our emotions and limit rational thought/discussion.  But of all emotional responses there are hatred by far is the most dangerous one to play to...

But who am I to tell people how they should feel...

I think the forked tongue post was worse; more hateful. Siniora even corrected himself later.

I don't know anything about it, but the NYT recently had an article suggesting that one thing that set Hezbollah's leader Nasrallah apart from other Arab leaders was that he had a sense of humor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/world/middleeast/07nasrallah.html

This is what America did to AA for HUNDREDS of years and still does in terms of the incarceration rates. 

Because of course those higher incarceration rates could not possibly be explained by black people committing more crimes, on average, than other groups. 

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

Far more states are ethnically and religiously homogeneous than not, although many have small minority groups.

I think your post is less offensive than simply purely hypothetical and thus not very helpful with regard to resolving real world problems.

This is a far more sophisticated argument than ever goes through the head of the average intolerant hater. I know plenty of people in Ohio, including some relatives, who don't know the difference b/t Arabs and Muslims, don't care, and would embrace pretty much any plan to take them out. (I do think some of them struggle with whether to like the Jews b/c Israel is our ally or to dislike them b/c they represent the liberal Hollywood elite who are constantly castigated by the right-wing.)

I agree with Matt that these people certainly can't tell the difference b/t the 9/11 hijackers, the Taliban, Iraqis, Palestinians and pretty much anyone else you want to include on this list (this is why the Dubai Ports deal was bipartisan).

If you want to go even further into the unspeakable depths on this issue, I know plenty of former military guys who served in Iraq who are also basically in this boat, regardless of what they were told while they were in Iraq about the differences b/t Iraqi sects, b/t the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqis, etc.

Brett are you suggesting that since hatred of a religious group isn't hatred of a race, and therefore not "racism" per se, it is somehow less despicable?  I see no difference...

As I recall, the good nuns taught me that hating anyone is wrong (though some of the Irish ones I could swear still hate the English). My goodness, could that be why I've had evengelical Christians tell me all Catholics burn in hell? Hating people for their religious beliefs generally includes hating their children long before they've reached an age to form adults judgments. Hating people because of their religious beliefs enables you to see them all alike, all worthy of hell, and all justifiably expendable. Religious beliefs are deeply intertwined with culture which is almost indistinguishable from "race" since "race" really has very little objective meaning at all.

Not at all, as persuasively argued here.

No, I'm saying that antisemitism is frequently and commonly recognized as a negative and destructive influence in American culture and politics, while anti-Arab prejudice really isn't.

Is this what YOU think? I don't. It is all a matter of the group that is speaking and the audience. Everyone knows that people do not own up to bigotry and racism publically so what is your point? Most everyone also knows that there is still collective hate and bigotry in America between ethnic groups.  Ain't a darn thing new about this.

I said several posts ago that it was acceptable and delineated the scale of acceptability  by ethnic groups while wondering  what's new about this type of racism in America?  It is vintage ...nothing of significance.

 This is also, I'll note, pretty much the exact same point Matt Yglesias made in his post some fifty-odd comments ago - you know, the post you said was "old news" and yet don't seem to have actually read.

And I am still saying the exact same thing.

Did you actually read anything I wrote previously, or are you deliberately misconstruing everything I write?

Yes, I read it. No, I am not misconstruing it. I am still saying the same thing that the way Matt raised the issue is nothing of note. It is not acceptable to be pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab on the subject of Israel, if you are...then you are labelled anti=Semitic...which means that bigotry for Arabs IS acceptable. How it is you are missing that point I do not know. That is a reality and is nothing of significance. It is the American way.

Now, if you say that the 'jewish only' state is analogous to apartheid in Israel...then you will be attacked.

If an Iraqi wrote that it was unacceptable to  demean Allah and quite acceptable and common to hate Israel, their God and Jews, Iraqi's would be like...duh?

When American was fighting Indians and the Japanese, there was lots of mainstream bigotry and hostility directed at them where they were described in derogatory ways in the press...it was totally acceptable.  So what is friggin new about American having open animosity about Muslims and Arabs when we are at war with Iraq and they are also said to 'terrorize' Israel.

I see nothing remarkable about that.

Matt's post sounds like he was trying to be profound about something that is totally commonplace and acceptable in American culture.

In short, there is nothing new or insightful about this type of racism in America.

Once again.

To want all of Israel to just go away is not antisemitic.

To redress the injustice Israel commited of denying Palestinians the right to return because of their ethnicity would end Israel's Jewish majority.

We constantly see this shell game by supporters of Israel.  This post never actually says, much less argues that it is anti-Semitic to call for a one-state solution or to call for the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Instead it mentions that, then begins talking about anti-semitism.

The argument that calling for "one state for more than one peoples" is antisemitic occurs often around here.  The side claiming it is antisemitic always loses, because there is no logical argument for it.

Of course, "want all of Israel to just go away" is another example of the dramatic and exaggerated language supporters of Israel use. Like "destruction of Israel" or "eradication of Israel" or "dismemberment of Israel".

But when this shocking hyperbolic language is translated back to "want enough Palestinians and refugees to vote that Israel does not have a Jewish majority" then once again supporters of Israel are stuck trying to make the same always-losing argument that it is somehow anti-semitic.

We've gone way past the point where this is getting boring. 

And of course the same kind of predjudice continues against homosexuals in this country. Isn't that right Whiterosebuddy?

You're referring to this article.

It is certainly unfair to accuse all Iranians of being liars. The label is judgmental and reeks of stereotype. The more appropriate way to phrase the Iranian view toward honesty, the way many Iranians themselves describe it, is to say that being direct and telling the truth are not prized principles in Iran.

Often, just the opposite is true. People are expected to give false praise and insincere promise. They are expected to tell you what you want to hear to avoid conflict, or to offer hope when there is none.

Palestinians have no compunction about telling lies and see truth as irrelevant, the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has claimed in an interview.

"They are products of a culture in which to tell a lie... creates no dissonance," Mr Barak says. "They don't suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judaeo-Christian culture."

"Truth is seen as an irrelevant category," he says."There is only that which serves your purpose and that which doesn't. They see themselves as emissaries of a national movement for whom everything is permissible. There is no such thing as 'the truth'."

This is interesting, also:

I don't know of many brave White House staffers willing to risk the president's anger by dishing him the bad news.

Instead, Bush is spoon-fed the relevant news from his staff. Top aides usually know the buttons not to push when it comes to bad news. More often they will tell the president what he wants to hear -- the good news if there is any. Or they may just sugar coat the news that is tougher to swallow.

Because of course those higher incarceration rates could not possibly be explained by black people committing more crimes, on average, than other groups. 

AA represent 12.7% of the US population and 15% of US drug users. 

72% of all drug users are white yet 36.8% of those arrested for a drug abuse violation are AA.

In 2001, accdg to the US Dept of Justice, the overall incarceration rate was 690 inmates per 100K US residents. For black males it is 3,535 per 100K, as compared to 1,177 Hispanic males per 100K and 462 white males per 100K.

He was saying that Iranians communicate in a way in which the surface meaning of a statement, which is geared towards preserving social harmony, is modified or negated by other nuances of the conversation or social setting. That is not a lie. A lie is saying something that you know not to be true and trying to get someone else to believe it. This is saying something that both parties know not to be true, in such a way that no feelings get hurt.

The same thing happens in China, and it is very easy to get insulted or wind up feeling betrayed if you, as a foreigner, are not tuned in to whats going on. A person who is more attuned to the cultural nuances would know what was going on.

We do this in the US as well, although it might not be as pervasive. You set up your friend with a friend of your girlfriend's. After the date you ask him what he thinks of her. "She's nice, I mean she's got a really great personality..." Someone who only heard the literal meaning of that would think he was up for a second date, but you know he thinks she's ugly.

Not at all? dj moonbat is a lot more clearheaded than you are.  Even the piece you cite admits that the black crime rate is higher than the white crime rate, although not as much higher as the incarceration rate.

But overall, the paper is not very persuasive.  It spends a lot of time explaining the theory that prisons serve to keep the black man down, but offers very little in the way of evidence to show that the greater prison sentences are due to bias rather than to the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The piece also seems to suggest that our extremely low incarceration rates inthe 1970s were an example of progress that we should have kept following.  Not mentioned at all were the skyrocketing crime rats inthe 1970s and 1980s, and the reduction in crime that has occurred along with the swelling of the prison population.  (In fact, it seems that the authors are puzzled why prison populations are up when crime is down, which shows that they don't consider the possibility of causality in both directions (i.e. why are we jailing more people when fewer are committing crimes? rather than maybe we have lower crime rates because the criminals are locked up).

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"