bideshi

Other than correctly pointing out the the Holocaust was different than the African slave trade, your post was irrelevant verbal diarrhea that didn't prove your claim that the trans-Atlantic slave trade being the worst case of slavery in the history of mankind legitimizes your idea that only white people can be racist. If you really knew your stuff, you should be able to give at least a few reasons why the American version of slavery was the worst ever--instead of just writing down the name of a (probably) leftist thinktank focused on American history (as opposed to world history). And you should be able to at least attempt to explain why the sins of white people are somehow worse than the sins of Africans or Asians who practiced slavery and thus make them uniquely guilty of racism. (Let's not forget the cases of blacks enslaving whites throughout history.)

But the weakness of your assertion goes beyond just not being able to support the facts about transatlantic slavery. Even if the transatlantic slavery were the worst case of slavery in human history, that does not mean that Blacks in 21st-century America cannot be racist simply because of the pigment of their skin. Even if we account for the generational pain caused by slavery in previous centuries, that does not absolve Blacks from the sin of racism, that does not excuse the corruption and violence in the BLM organization and movement, and that does not legitimize the infantalization of Blacks by leftists that keeps them in the cycle of poverty, broken families, and violence. It does a community/people no good to keep looking at themselves as victims of long-ago sins, as the worst victims in the history of mankind.

Thanks. I'm sure you're right. She does what all trolls do: not respond to genuine issues raised by others, ignore problematic facts, and resort to the lazy person's "Just look it up on the internet" argument. I sort of knew that she was a troll and that wouldn't seriously engage with my thoughts, but I still didn't want her nonsense to be the last word. But even if she remains in her ignorant bubble, perhaps other more thoughtful members would find something useful to chew on.

[This is in response to Emi who blocked me.]

My point is that no one is seriously being affected by this particular instance, except for those who live to be offended. And the reason I'm engaging on this issue is because I don't think it makes for a healthy person or a society if every instance of anyone being offended leads to cancel culture and outraged demands for apology. One--of many--negative consequences of that is that when everything is offensive, when everything is racist, then those terms lose meaning and lose the power to truly convict, to truly oppose evil in the world. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. So a non-Arab/non-Muslim person like me can still be interested in this because cancel culture/everything-is-racist victim mentality is cancer to a society and culture. So I try to point out its illegitimacy and danger whenever I can. You might not agree with me, but I hope you can at least understand my reasoning.

Also, I'm not defending the writers; I've been on record as saying that the whole Samir storyline was so-so at best; it was too cartoonish for me. But I will defend the right of writers to write comedy as they want without fear of cancel culture, I will defend the right of artists to portray things that some might find offensive, because freedom of speech--if a society is to be truly free--should trump even hurt feelings and offensive ideas.

I can understand that some people want charming without any immoral behavior. Of course, that's your right/taste/preference. But don't get angry if some other people want to portray a character in a different way, perhaps in a more interesting/fun way. To me, it made sense for Samir to have this "bad boy" image at the start, because it was fun to see that in reality he was a decent guy, a gentleman toward Sarang, a fun rival yet not a sore loser. He was portrayed as a sheep in a wolf's clothing. Honestly, other than the brief scene in the bar--which I wouldn't have even noticed if people hadn't started protesting--there was no other scene in which he was shown to be an immoral, out-of-control playboy. Instead, his role was a charming prince in love with an unattainable princess. So in the end, I think Samir was a positive portrayal of an Arab/Muslim: someone you would't mind having as a friend. Wouldn't you say that that's big improvement on the psychopathic terrorist who doesn't drink?

Also, I don't agree that every religious character has to be shown to be following his religion's rules. That'd mean, for example, no Christians committing adultery or stealing or killing or lying or disrespecting their parents--which would not only be boring but untrue. It's your job as a muslim to follow all the rules, but it's not the job of writers/songwriters/movie makers to create religious characters who follow all the rules. Ignoring the stories of sinners in any religion is not the same as respecting that religion. And I say that as someone who absolutely believes that you don't need to be immoral to have fun. But that's different than thinking that writers wrong to create such a character. You don't have to like Samir, but I don't think you can call the writers racist.

So for you the western media is wrong in its depiction of muslims, but the muslim media is right in its depiction of the west/Christians. For you, only a minority in the west research muslims while a majority in muslim countries research the west. For you, the muslims have an accurate picture of reality, while the west has an inaccurate picture of reality. That's your argument without any evidence, so I have no reason to be persuaded by you.

I've written elsewhere that the image of the Arab nations is not as bad as some like you think it is. I've said that holding events like the football World Cup and the athletic World Championships, like having some of the best airlines and hotels in the world, like attracting the best footballers and golfers, like being known to have a very wealthy citizenry--all these things are all over the media in Asia and the west. If anything, the American mainstream media is afraid to air anything negative about muslims because of the outcry of "Islamophia." So I think you can tone down your "woe is me, everyone hates us" attitude--the problem being that it's not just your attitude, it's your whole argument.

I'm not sure which of my comments you're responding to, but 1) Is the depiction of a drinking/partying Arab prince factually wrong and devoid of reality? If the answer is no (and so far, no one has refuted the claim and internet articles saying that some Arab princes are like that), then I don't think the charge of racism sticks. 2) Is it automatically racist to portray another culture in a way that some find offensive? I don't think so; not automatically. Sometimes such portrayals might offend a small minority, but they could also prick the conscience of some and inspire self-reflection and change. Of course, the scene in King the Land was neither meant to offend nor to effect change; it was literally 10-seconds out of a couple of episodes in which the Arab prince came off as charming (in a clownish way). It was too little importance to do any damage or any good--which is why I and many others are saying that the outrage and the charge of racism is way, way overblown. And I find that such outrage and claims are not reasonable and are not backed up with valid arguments; it's just another example of overly sensitive people who put feelings above facts.

No, logically speaking it would not necessarily follow that those who live in a homogeneous non-Muslim culture would have a worse opinion of Muslims (whom by definition they don't have a chance to know) than those from multicultural cultures who have lots of interaction with Muslims. For those in a multicultural society, their opinion probably depends on which types of Muslims they've met. I've never met a person from the Ivory Coast, for example, and have very little info/idea about their culture (besides the football great Drogba), but that doesn't mean that therefore I have a worse opinion of Ivory Coast than someone who perhaps lives near a neighborhood full of people from the Ivory Coast. My slate would be pretty blank.

I don't think it helps to use generalizations like "ppl from the west have ignorant concepts about muslims" as if people from the west all thought one way or had the same experience, or that people from homogeneous cultures must have negative opinions about cultures they haven't interacted with. Using such generalizations to judge and analyze every situation would only increase discrimination and racism.

By your definition, people living in homogeneous cultures (like many, many Muslim nations) would all have ignorant backward concepts about Christians, the West, and....Koreans--which your posts (and many other Arab/Muslims' posts) prove.

Is this another example of your extensive research/knowledge? That the high suicide rate in Korea is due to a lack of travel and knowledge of other cultures? As opposed to the pressure to succeed (in school and in career), as opposed to the honor/shame culture of Korea? That somehow it's America's multicultural society that's keeping the suicide rate down? That somehow the less suicidal, but far less educated, youth of America know a lot more about the world than the youth of Korea and that's what's protecting them from committing suicide?

It's deeply concerning to me that the suicide rate among the youth in Korea is so high. I think it reveals deep problems in modern Korean society, deep problems in family life, and deep spiritual problems as well. I think many people would agree that modern technology that continues to isolate people from one another is a part of the problem. I don't think it'd be easy to solve such a serious, deep-rooted problem. But to have any hope of solving it, I think a serious, accurate diagnosis is needed. And your diagnosis is junk, pure quackery. Multiculturalism and exposure to different cultures will no more solve the high suicide rate in Korea than it will solve the high homicide rate in America.

"the transatlantic slave trade which is recorded as the worst case of slavery in all of history". Another example of your nonsense "research," of your feelings reaching for exaggeration beyond the facts. By what measure was that the worst? Did it go on longer than any other instance of slavery (which has been around for as long as humans have been around)? Did it involve more people than any other instance of slavery? Was it somehow more cruel than any other instance of slavery? What about the fact that the the start of the translatlantic slave trade were Africans who had captured/enslaved other Africans and brought them to the coasts for sale? Was it white people who got the Africans to enslave one another? And what do you do with the fact that it was white people who started the abolitionist movement?

You mean facts like this? "The whole society is f-uped. They even have so much hatred for themselves and the worst self esteem, no wonder they can’t value and accept others. Such a disgusting society." Or your opinion that the portrayal of Samir was inappropriate? Other than the undenial genral fact that every nation/race has people who have done something that's sure to offend somebody, somewhere, what you present as fact is simply your broad generations about a nation/society.

I see. You took a break from watching, but you still lurk in these forums. So I guess you haven't even seen the episode with the Arab prince?

I see. You took a break from watching, but you still lurk in these forums. So I guess you haven't even seen the episode with the Arab prince?

Whoopi, is this you? Or is this Sunny? I didn't know that the ladies of the View watch Kdramas and come here to spout the same idiotic debunked things.

You sound just like the racist grifters who started BLM and are now living in million-dollar mansions using donations without doing anything to actually help the black community. But at least they got something out of it. I feel bad for the supporters of BLM who do the bidding of their cult leaders without getting a mansion.

FYI: No Korean who thinks that it's silly to demand an apology for Samir's portrayal thinks that Korean society doesn't have lots of ugly parts. Of course it does. Why do you think Kdramas show school bullying, corrupt businessmen/politicians, domestic violence/misogyny so often? And there are many TV programs that positively portray foreigners of all kinds and show their struggles/successes living in Korea. So to become outraged about 10 second of a comedy--and note that nobody has denied that there have been Arab princes who do far worse than what Samir was seen doing--and to claim that the lack of research (as if they were making a documentary) proves racist intent is ridiculous.

Since you say that you can see ugliness is other cultures and like to be balanced, I hope you can also see the ugliness in the black culture in America and the corruption in the BLM movement. But you probably can't or won't since you seem to have the incredibly damaging mindset of "blacks can't ever be racist, can't ever be faulted because we're going to be victims forever." It's extremely hypocritical for someone who refuses to own responsibility to call on another race/country to take responsibility.

Korea has been invaded and subjugated multiple times by foreign nations--as recently as in the 20th century. So from your way of looking at things, Korea could have just blamed outsiders for its situation, could have played the victim card. If a nation could be said to have historical PTSD, Korea would probably fit the description. But dwelling on the past or blaming others for its internal problems might have felt good, but it wouldn't have helped the country achieve the kinds of things it has done in just the last 70 years. I'm sure Korea has had its share of people who preferred to play the victim game and wanted reparations for this or that, but ultimately, they are not the ones who helped the nation develop. So perhaps you can ask yourself if your mindset is helpful to yourself or to your people. Maybe you can do some genuine research and reflection on what causes the black criminal rate, the breakdown of the black family, the failure of blacks in education, the percentage of blacks on welfare. But if every answer is a predetermined "Bad white people and systemic racism," then I'd argue that you aren't genuinely interested in finding out the truth, that you're not genuinely interested in seeing or doing something about the ugly aspects of black culture in America. Screaming "white power and systemic racism is the main evil that blacks face in America" and having that echoed in the media, popular culture and academia will not do anything to actually improve the life of blacks in America. How do I know that? Because history shows me that it hasn't helped--or to be more accurate, it hasn't helped anyone except the professional race hustlers (e.g. the BLM leaders, Al Sharpton, Joy Reid) who make a very good living doing it.

It must be so very hard on you to watch entertainment from a country you hate so much. I'd suggest that you find a country free from racial prejudice and stereotypes, a country that doesn't use any stereotypes at all in its books/music/TV/movies, and live there happily ever after. No, actually, I take that back; your racist presence would ruin such a utopia, so please don't even think about going there.

Hey, you do you. Keep on seeing injustice everywhere, keep on blaming others for your problems and the problems of your group, keep on believing that BLM has been helpful to the black community, keep on ignoring inconvenient truths, keep on making identity politics your religion--and see how successful you can be at being a joyful person who promotes actual good in this world by forming meaningful relationships with people of all colors, religions, and political persuasion.

Yes, I agree that prejudice and racism, though usually related, are technically different. But can you agree that all people (black, brown, white) can be prejudiced and also harbor some racism against another group? Can you agree that black people in a black-majority African country can be racist against minority whites or Asians in their country, or does their skin color somehow make them immune? Since you seem to be saying that blacks can be prejudiced but not racist, I'd like to know what you mean--especially if you are referring to all black people.

At the risk of oversimplification, I do think a lot of the outrage can be explained by a hyper-sensitive, nationalistic, arrogant, self-absorbed yet self-unaware victim-mentality that has bought into cancel culture. I think it explains a lot of the troll-filled toxicity on so many online forums.

So I very much appreciate your genuine attempt to explain and understand.

I think we'd both agree that the world would be a much better place if we focused on real-life behavior (starting with our own) and fought against real-life instances of injustice (against any nation or race) rather than showing faux outrage toward a minor blip in a TV show.

See you around on these forums--though for lighter topics, I hope.

I appreciate your thoughtful input and attempt at explanation. I'm not sure I understand 100% of it clearly, but I think you're wanting people to see this King the Land incident from a socio-political perspective, as a matter of power dynamics between traditionally powerful countries and races (the West, Christianity) and the traditionally less powerful countries/races/religions (the East/Middle East, Islam). I see this as more of a personal/moral/spiritual matter--that is, everyone (people of every race/country) is guilty of racial stereotyping of foreigners (some extremely harmful, some perfectly benign). I think once we accept this, we can be less thin-skinned and react more reasonably to perceived slights; rather than becoming outraged and engaging in cancel culture, we can laugh at ourselves (which is part of what it means to have a good sense of humor), and also ask ourselves if we might hold any similar stereotypes of people from other countries/races/religions. That's why I think the outrage that's been shown is wrong-headed, unreasonable, blind and hypocritical. And I don't think being a member of a minority group, a less powerful group, excuses such blind hypocrisy.

Getting back to your socio-political perspective, I can accept that those in the majority, those with power who control the media/narrative, can and do portray the less powerful minority in unflattering stereotypes. (That's been true since the beginning of time, and to a large extent I think it'll be true forever because 1) human beings always misuse power and 2) human beings naturally are going to be more generous to the familiar vs. the unfamiliar. I believe that this kind of sinful nature is the only systemic thing that can explain any of this.)

It seems that you think that the Middle East/Muslim nations have suffered and still suffer from stereotypes held by the West. But honestly, in 2023, I don't think the Middle East/Muslims (or at least the Arab Muslims) needs to have any sense of inferiority on the global stage any more. Whether it's hosting the World Cup or bringing the best golfers and football players to its leagues, or having the best airlines in the world, or exerting enormous influence on the global economy through oil, or having a very wealthy citizenry, I'd say that Arab Muslims have come a long way and have much to be proud of and envied. That is, I don't think the Arab Muslim's persona is so weak anymore that it's going to be much hurt by the portrayal of Samir. Let's remember that he wasn't portrayed as being an ignorant, backwards, cruel, woman-oppressing, fundamentalist terrorist. He was portrayed as a powerful, successful, charming, funny classmate and rival to Gu Won. So I'm not really seeing the insult here. I don't think this this is the same kind of insult as the Chinaman in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

One more point regarding your socio/geopolitics perspective on racism. If you look at people groups more locally, then almost every group has power over another group, including minority groups and including the ones "oppressed" by the West. That is, every group is both a victim and a perpetrator of holding/perpetuating unflattering stereotypes of another group. In any country or even just a region of a country, the majority population will hold power over minority populations, often acting unjustly and mocking them with stereotypes. I'm sure that's been true in Middle East/Arab nations. Even as they were "victimized" by Western stereotypes, I'm sure that they perpetuated stereotypes of minorities of other races and religions who lived among them. To me, that's the CONTEXT that MATTERS. That's why I can't accept your premise that stereotyping powerful Caucasians is somehow VERY DIFFERENT and excusable compared to stereotyping Arabs/Muslims because they are powerless, hapless victims of Western stereotypes.

No nation/race is so powerless or innocent that it does not perpetuate negative stereotypes of minorities, and I see it as being intellectually dishonest and morally wrong to excuse bad behavior by saying "But it's not hurting them because they're powerful." To me, that's the same nonsense I hear in America where some people say that a person of color can't be racist against white people.

But apparently he doesn't drink or let women touch him. :-)

"if this was about any other culture..." I don't think showing a woe-is-me victim mentality is a good look. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that most people who think the reaction is overblown do so as a matter of principle, not because the character was an Arab/Muslim. Please get off your low horse; Arabs/Muslims simply aren't that special and people are not sitting around thinking of ways to offend them.

So what would have been a sensible way to portray an impulsive, worldly Arab prince with an apparent fetish for Korea girls that isn't based on a stereotype? (I thought that the fact that he had learned Korean because he was in love with a Korean girl made him a completely un-stereotypical (and unrealistic) Arab prince. But one scene of him drinking and people claim that Koreans are portraying a stereotype of Arab men. It just doesn't make sense.)

Do the dramas in your country ever portray princes drinking in bars with women? Can they do that in a sensible way not coming out of stereotypes? If not, is it because princes never do anything against Islamic law, or is it because the producers/actors would be punished in some way?

These are all genuine questions because I really want to know how Arab shows would sensibly portray less-than-perfect members of the royalty.