"Singh, who is a Sikh, also stole her cellphone and some cash before letting her go in the morning."No reason for them to bring up his religion in this article.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/rapist_falls_for_dna_trick_JMxa3zFRN9HorsHpzq1vqKhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_use_water_bottle_to_collar_ebWgVp2mRqZS1NLxUeAh4H- IRKS MY NERVES when they bring Religion into matters like these. I've never seen them go about saying 'A Christian raped a woman today' .. etc. But they're on point when it comes to Middle Eastern decent.
Merely an identifier? Pretty sure in India they know what "Singh" means. Don't be so nieve my Guju (just an identifier) friend.
Quote from: kiddan morniye on January 11, 2012, 11:46:51 PMhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/rapist_falls_for_dna_trick_JMxa3zFRN9HorsHpzq1vqKhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_use_water_bottle_to_collar_ebWgVp2mRqZS1NLxUeAh4H- IRKS MY NERVES when they bring Religion into matters like these. I've never seen them go about saying 'A Christian raped a woman today' .. etc. But they're on point when it comes to Middle Eastern decent.What is your point? Neither of these articles bring up his religion in ANYWAY except for the character testimony from his father who says he is religious. In fact, both these articles are pretty well-written. Both shy away from using his religious or ethnic identifiers and simply identify him as the criminal. It must really irk your nerves for articles that you didn't read to offend you.And these "descriptions" are based directly on the audience. It's natural to shy away from using adjectives that associate with the majority because it seems obvious at times and use adjectives that deviate from the norm more often. It's rare to read an article titled "Indian Man Wins Lottery" in India.
Hmmm I wonder why a newspaper as shitty as the ny post doesn't even mention this guys religion? Probably because it's irrelevant to the brutal crime this man committed...
Here's the thing, we are talking about the times of india article, not the others. The word Sikh was used in order to communicate to the reader that the person who committed this crime was a of a specific religion. You argue that this was done merely as a way of identifying the culprit more fully. But, why is his religion relevant? Why did the writer insist on including his religion and not that he was Punjabi? Is it not to make the reader believe something about the culprit? A way of saying, "hey, just so you know, this thing happened and by the way, the guy was a Sikh." The article doesn't ask you to judge, but it knows that the close-minded Indian readers will. A writer knows his audience, and plays on their backgrounds when he includes certain words. Whether it is bigoted is debatable, but whether it was a deliberate way to get the audience to judge this guy is most probably true.Hmmm I wonder why a newspaper as shitty as the ny post doesn't even mention this guys religion? Probably because it's irrelevant to the brutal crime this man committed...
Quote from: HarmanSingh on January 11, 2012, 11:11:13 PM"Singh, who is a Sikh, also stole her cellphone and some cash before letting her go in the morning."No reason for them to bring up his religion in this article.Yeah, no reason for them to bring up the fact that he's Indian either. Or the fact that he's 40. Or that he's been driving a cab since 1999. Or that his name is Gurmeet. (I have a friend named Gurmeet. Now, people are going to think he rapes people now!)It's the only mention of Sikhism in the entire article (Times of India). It's an identifier, a description. The article in no way insinuates that religion had anything to do with it. People these days need to stop jumping the "They Said The R-Word!!!1" bandwagon without due cause.
Quote from: Sue Sylvester on January 11, 2012, 11:54:30 PMQuote from: HarmanSingh on January 11, 2012, 11:11:13 PM"Singh, who is a Sikh, also stole her cellphone and some cash before letting her go in the morning."No reason for them to bring up his religion in this article.Yeah, no reason for them to bring up the fact that he's Indian either. Or the fact that he's 40. Or that he's been driving a cab since 1999. Or that his name is Gurmeet. (I have a friend named Gurmeet. Now, people are going to think he rapes people now!)It's the only mention of Sikhism in the entire article (Times of India). It's an identifier, a description. The article in no way insinuates that religion had anything to do with it. People these days need to stop jumping the "They Said The R-Word!!!1" bandwagon without due cause.Either you are incredibly naive or intentionally attempting to play devil's advocate. You have to take the history of Indian media and propaganda used by the government into consideration when looking at situations like this. There has never been a time where all 40 year olds were targeted by the media and government and were portrayed as violent animals out to kill the Indian public at large. That has been the case with the way Sikh men have/are being portrayed by India. It is easy to say "hey its just describing him" but his religion had nothing to do with the crime. It is another instance of the Indian media doing what it always does and portraying Sikhs in a certain light. You cannot dismiss history and the role of the Indian media in projecting a negative image of Sikhs throughout India. Honestly ask yourself if a Hindu who raped someone would have had their religion mentioned in the article. Here is a recent article from the same paper, that doesn't mention religion. Wonder why. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Youth-jailed-for-rape-bid-on-12-year-old/articleshow/11455652.cmsAlso, The Times of India has had problems with previous editors being dismissed for pro-Hinduvta sentiments.
Quote from: faizan on January 12, 2012, 12:30:08 AMHere's the thing, we are talking about the times of india article, not the others. The word Sikh was used in order to communicate to the reader that the person who committed this crime was a of a specific religion. You argue that this was done merely as a way of identifying the culprit more fully. But, why is his religion relevant? Why did the writer insist on including his religion and not that he was Punjabi? Is it not to make the reader believe something about the culprit? A way of saying, "hey, just so you know, this thing happened and by the way, the guy was a Sikh." The article doesn't ask you to judge, but it knows that the close-minded Indian readers will. A writer knows his audience, and plays on their backgrounds when he includes certain words. Whether it is bigoted is debatable, but whether it was a deliberate way to get the audience to judge this guy is most probably true.Hmmm I wonder why a newspaper as shitty as the ny post doesn't even mention this guys religion? Probably because it's irrelevant to the brutal crime this man committed...I agree. Religion is not relevant. But neither is the criminal's age, his name, his background or his 2007 suspension relevant to the crime he committed. These simply help paint the story and describe the culprit. In addition, the article was written based on information reported from the US counterparts which have a character testimony from the father who says that his son would never do this and that his son was religious. Any writer who gets that information will at the very least include his religion if that is something that the suspect seemed to identify himself with.The word "Sikh" is used once and used in passing (Singh, who is also a Sikh, did this) as oppose to directly bringing it up (Singh is a Sikh). The article stays neutral and doesn't even make him seem culpable of the crime. "arrested on charges of", "[he] allegedly held his victim", "allegedly held her at knifepoint"..etc. I do not see the word play and insinuations that you are seeing. Please do point them out. Also, the article is titled "Indian cab driver arrested on charges of rape", NOT "Sikh Cab Driver arrested on charges of rape". Is this bigotry? Definitely not. No association or generalization is made or insinuated by the article between religion and the crime.Is the Times Of India secretly pushing its readers to think lesser of Sikhs? The word Sikh appears only once, more than half way through the article and it's inclusion is passing and obviously for the benefit of description, not association. In addition, words are used to make him seem like he is only being accused of the crime and facing charged, not that he is actually guilty. This is assuming, of course, that both you and I are capable of reading and interpreting English and that I didn't accidentally skip over the "Sikhs are evil." sentence in the article.Are people looking to get their panties in a knot over nothing? Yes. Religion is definitely misused by the media. If a shooter is Muslim, the story will be shown in a different light than a Catholic shooter. However, we should be able to differentiate between justified uses (description, causation) and exaggerated, misdirected uses (generalization, misdirection) and not feel the need to take out pitchforks any time the "r-word" is mentioned. The sensitivity to religion is really starting to become silly and stupid. There are times when we need to stand up against actual hate propaganda (ie: Florida Family Association Islamophobia & Lowe incident, which is ridiculously bigoted), but if you draw issue with all the stupid silly shit that doesn't even merit your attention, no one will ever take you seriously.
+1
While I agree that I don't think it was meant to be an intentionally subversive/bigoted statement, one look at the comments section basically proves everyone else's point.
Of course, his name gives his upbringing away but there's always the case that he's not religious or something right? The religion becomes important by virtue of the paper highlighting it, whether it's descriptive, narrative, whatever. Without that, it's people's assumptions that make the religion important, not the article.
Bigoted? No. Hateful? No. Irresponsible? Maybe, and more importantly the writer probably didn't even think about the impact. In fact, it's entirely possible the Times of India commissioned the piece from someone here.
Quote from: kiddan morniye on January 12, 2012, 12:34:40 PM+1Kiddan Morniye,It irked you when religion was brought into this, yet you titled the BTF thread "Sikh Cab Driver..." when the original article was titled "Indian Cab Driver". You are in fact pushing religion onto this significantly more than the article did but then are claiming it pisses you off. Hypocrisy at its very finest.
Because I added the Sikh part I'm pushing religion onto this more than the article? Because I paraphrased it doesn't mean anything, because yet again it says 'SIKH' within the article. But to each his own, just as you think it was irrelevant for me to add the sikh part I think the same way towards 'The Time of India' article. So you could be right in your place & I could be right in my own.
Why do articles about other instances of rape not mention the person's religion in the very same paper. It is interesting they only bring up the rapist's religion if he is supposedly a Sikh.
Author
Topic: Sikh Cab Driver Arrested with Rape Charges (Read 1185 times)
