Is this New York Times headline racist?

[_Jumper_]

www.nytimes.com

"Arab attackers kill 13 in Israel." They were Palestinians but the headline read "Arab." Would the NYT ever consider calling, let's say a Mexican criminal a "Hispanic murderer" or a Nigerian crominal a "black criminal"?

[RichM]

1. I don't think it's racist.

No one hates the NYT more than I do, & I'd be glad to condemn them for almost anything. But for a headline, this particular thing doesn't bother me. You could argue that "Arab" is only 4 letters, while "Palestinian" is 11, & that makes a difference in layout. Besides, there is no propaganda benefit in using the word "Arab." Most readers seeing it will probably unconsciously assume it means "Palestinian" anyway.

[_Jumper_]

2. If the criminal was a typical Honduran or typical Zimbabwan

Would the headline call them Hispanic or black respectively? If they did, wouldn't it be considered racist? Aren't these writers taught to carefully choose their words in matters such as this?

[_Jumper_]

3. One reply

Hey, after all, the headline was racist against Arabs. It isn't like it was racist against "important" minority groups such as blacks or Hispanics...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I see you are going to bump your own post tonight until you can

create an issue as is par for the course.

[_Jumper_]

5. That is an ironic response, lol

I bumped it just once. I won't bump it again. It is just interesting how there is one set of rules when it comes to tolerance for certain groups and one for everyone else. One wonders how tolerant, even liberals on DU would be of blacks if they weren't taught to be so since childhood...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. The fact that you usually slam liberals when you post these IS IT RACIST

threads makes me wonder why you are even here. It is a notion I can take to the bank every time you start one.

I wasn't taught to be TOLERANT OF ANYONE by my family. My father worked with black people and mexicans on labor issues..they were just people.

I think you have an ax to grind and are out to paint us all as hypocrites.

If you have a specific point please make it.

Otherwise, it looks to me like you are pulling the same crap a conservative would pull coming here and claiming REVERSE racism.

I don't take kindly to someone who only ever baits....

[_Jumper_]

10. When is the last time I posted here?????

I don't think I've posted in approximately a month. If what you say is true why am I not here regularly "baiting"?

[_Jumper_]

20. NSMA, response?

You made a serious charge. Back it up or retract it.

[oasis]

22. Another "bump" for that insightful comment.

Bumpity, bump, bump.

[zoidberg]

6. Of course not

The background of the killer is very relevent to this story. If there was a random bank robbery, the race of the criminal wouldn't be an issue. But if there was a hate crime, the race would matter. This is a hate crime, so the background matters.

[_Jumper_]

7. True

But the killer's background was Palestinian. Why slap the Arab label on them? Would you slap the black label on a Somalian that committed a crime? If think if that happened in a major media outlet you would, rightfully, denounce it...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. THe Arabs seem to want to own the Palestinians when there is an

issue to negotiate...why is it racist now?

[_Jumper_]

12. Broad brush

It paints a large group with a broad brush for the actions of a few people from a group involved in a quasi-domestic quasi-war. Would you call the IRA terrorists white terrorists or terrorists in Columbia Hispanic terrorists or would you call them Irish and Columbian terrorists respectively?

[Nevernose]

11. Aren't Palestinians Arabs?

"Arab" isn't a race, either, so how would it be construed as racist?

On a more realistic note, I imagine the NYT said "Arab" because they didn't have room for "Palestinian" in the headline.

[_Jumper_]

13. Response

Race also refers to ethnicity.

O.J. Simpson was black so would it be okay to refer to him by his "race" in your view?

[Nevernose]

16. Aren't the Jews living in Israel

ALSO Palestinians? I mean, that region of the world IS called Palestine, geographically and historically (including Israel, the West Bank/Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Iraq), right? So to be technically accurate, it was Arabs who blew up those bombs, since "Palestinians" could include any number of ethnicities.

If you don't like the historical/geographical perspective: there is currently no nation called "Palestine," so who would be the Palsetinans?

It would not be okay to refer to OJ as "black" because WE KNOW WHO KILLED NICOLE. If the killer were still at large, we would refer to him by whatever information we had available, as a simple matter of letting people know the description of who did it.

I just don't think it's inherently racist to call an Arab an Arab.

[_Jumper_]

18. Technically you're correct

However, the term "Palestinian" generally is used to refer to the Arabs of Palestine living on the West Bank and Gaze Strip.

Calling the 9/11 hijackers Arabs is okay IMO. However, to call Palestinians, who make up a miniscule % of the Arab population Arabs is wrong IMo. That is equavilent to calling a Nigerian criminal black or a Mexican criminal Hispanic when it isn't relevent to their crimes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. SO if the term refers to the ARABS of palestine then you just answered

your own question it seems

[_Jumper_]

23. No

The term African-American refers to the blacks of America. Does that mean African-American criminals should be called black? There are over 200 million Arabs. Only about 3 million are Palestinian I believe.

[Dookus]

14. No...

it's not racist.

No more than referring to "jewish settlements".

[_Jumper_]

15. I consider that religion-baiting

They should be referred too as Israeli settlements. Everyone forgets that most Jews live outside of Israel.

[Nevernose]

17. Since when?

Is this including New York, L.A., and Miami?

[_Jumper_]

19. There are more Jews in America than Israel

The fact that there are more Jews outside of Israel than in it is ignored by the media. I guess it ruins the whole storyline about Israel's struggle being a struggle for the survival of Jews.

[Dookus]

28. religion baiting?

that's ridiculous.

Actually, they are very accurately referred to as Jewish settlements, since many Israeli's are Arab and a decent number Christian. The Arab and Christian Israeli's are not establishing the settlements - the Jewish ones are. So therefore, "Jewish settlement" is clearer.

Furthermore, the nationality of the bombing perpetrators is not known. I think we can safely ASSUME they're Palestinians, but I doubt they'd been identified before the article went to print. However, eyewitnesses identified them as Arab. So again, it's accurate to refer to them as Arabs.

[_Jumper_]

31. They are Israeli Jewish settlements IMO

The article identified them as Palestinians.

[Cocoa]

24. that's a good question

I don't know if it's racist, it might be, a quick glance at Google news on this story shows most outlets say "Palestinians."

Interestingly, one source, jihadunspun, identifies the victims as "Zionists."

[_Jumper_]

25. Look at the name of that source

That tells you what they are all about. :eyes: Ignore them. They are an extremist outlet. The reason I was concerned about the NYT headline is because it is the most influential newspaper in America.

[IranianDemocrat]

26. Ridiculous question.

Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others or discrimination or prejudice based on race. How is the New York Times being racist by refering to them as arabs, which they ARE. It's like calling Egyptian arabs Egyptians or Libyan Arabs Libyans. Palestinian is their nationality, but they ARE arabs.

[_Jumper_]

27. That is the literal definition of racism

Race-baiting is generally referred to as racist behavior.

So would you not object to the NYT calling an African-American criminal black, since technically, he or she would be black?

[Dookus]

29. I would not object at all....

if the nationality of the criminal was unknown, but his race was.

It's actually done all the time. In descriptions of crimes, the perpetrators are often referred to as "black" instead of "African-American" simply because we have no idea if they're Americans.

[_Jumper_]

33. Why not?

What relevance does it have? If John Doe robbed a store what difference does it make if they were black, white, or purple?

[Dookus]

35. it's relevant

if a rapist is being sought and women are being told to be careful, for example. Just like height, weight, age, etc.

References to race are not, in themselves, racist.

I don't quite understand your point of view. How does mentioning race translate to racism?

[oasis]

30. african american "criminal"????

[_Jumper_]

32. Nice try ; )

I was referring to criminals that happened to be African-American. I don't believe they should be referred to as African-American or black unless it is relevent to the crime. I posed the question in response to some who apparently believed it was okay to refer to a group by their ethnicity or race even if it isn't relevent.

[oasis]

34. Nice try indeed, I was seeking a clarification and obtained one.

;-)