You can easily solve this problem by ditching Time and getting a real magazine, like the Economist.

Word.

Oh, and that truly was a pathetic peace of journalism.

It is kind of tactless and mildly offensive, but I would deem it harmless.

The lesson seems to be, well, things change when non-white repopulate your old town, but it's part of living in America. Sure it's a bit racist (dot-heads and all), but it doesn't advocate anything negative, and probably resounds with large proportions of America.

I don't necessarily think this is a 'good' article by any measure, but it certainly isn't the horrific stain on the otherwise paragon of virtue of the Times that you seem to be making it out to be.

(My point being that there are much better reasons for ignoring the Times as your source of information or insight than the foolishness of this article.)

You mean to say that the lamentation that the population change means that there are no more places for white kids to learn crime in Edison, NJ, is a harmless thing? I beg to disagree.

Um... I am still not clear on what exactly is wrong with that. Not only is it obviously in jest, it doesn't normalize racism or crime.... perhaps I am missing some context here.

lol, having respect for TIME

The article was weak - but it was neither racist nor offensive - was clearly meant as a somewhat blunt but funny way of looking at things.

I actually find the bitter response to be worse - and the guy who wrote it clearly has some issues.

Well Ivo, being offensive merely means that someone is offended by what you say or write. That being the case, something being deemed as offensive need not mean it is necessarily a bad thing! ^^

Racists, for instance, are probably offended when they are labeled as narrow minded. White people get offended when the issue of privelige gets brought up. Taking offense is a matter of perspective and maturity.

I quite liked it. It seemed to be a refreshingly honest point of view with some humour mixed in. Journalism needs more honesty, and less strict following of politically correct viewpoints. It was not by any means an amazing piece of journalism, but quite readable and informative of a particular view point.

Not that I make a habit of reading Time Magazine. Generally speaking I stick to The Economist and New Scientist, and The Telegraph or The Independent for my newspaper (depending on whether I have the space to read a broadsheet or how pretty the Independent's front cover is)

I agree FS - that's exactly my point - the article is only offensive if you are not be able to see past it and realize what the author was trying (not very well) to communicate.

So, the only conclusion I can take out is that someone wrote a poor article, with no bad intent, and then a bunch of brainwashed angry people started screaming to the heavens.

I like the second bunch less :) - they lack "perspective and maturity" - the first guy is just a bad journalist.

And, clearly, the Times have to consider how good their their editing team is.

+1 Octavious.

I also found it to be actually positive towards Indians - indirectly - but definitely positive. You can only be offended if you took the words out of context.

Maybe my English is not that good...

Well, it contained back-handed complimentary assumptions about Indians, but those are not necessarily all that much better than negative assumptions.

To test this out, walk up to the next person of Asian descent you meet today, say, "Hey! You're good at math right? Can you help me with this Calculus problem? and gauge thier reaction.

I suspect they will be less than pleased with you. :)

I believe the author wanted to show, using stereotypes, prejudice and blunt ignorance as a cover-up, that change can be for the good, that it is actually almost always for the good, regardless of how scary it may seem for the primitive mind.

Clearly he could have done a better job - but it's there if you want to see it.

FS - the example you provided is not good. Clearly such a sentence out of context implies a high level of prejudice. This was not the case with the article.

Perhaps not, but even within the context I don't think back-handed compliments about Indians being smart or good engineers etc. is particularly praiseworthy.

It is just another example, frankly, of evaluating people based on assumption regarding the merits of a group rather than the merits of individual. It isn't heinous, but nor is it particularly helpful in trying to rid society of a tendency towards "Othering".

Remember of course, that the context for New Jersey is that of tensions, vandalism, and even violence against Indians for being Indians.

I don't really disagree with you too much here Ivo, I just don't think we ought to be giving this guy much (if any) credit.

@FS - I beleive he was trying to actually be ironic and show how stupid it is to be prejudiced and to follow stereotypes?

I'm not giving him credit - he did a poor job at writing it - but I'm giving less credit to the people hitting at him for being a racist. He is a poor writer - they are brainwashed and stupid - and in my book that's far worse :)

Okay, well I agree with that. I thought you were saying, aw, it isn't so bad, he said good things about the nice little Indians too! Which obviously isn't the problem. But sure, prejudice and stereotypes are silly, and if he succeeded in illustrating that (not sure if he did) then that is one note of success.

back-handed compliments??? From what I make of it Joel Stein isn't saying anything about Indians; rather, he's talking about American perceptions and prejudices. Rahul Parikh's overly defensive reaction is far worse in my opinion.

Poorly written irony. New Jersey, the butt of humor across America for it's particular social/ethnic make-up - a place reviled by many (who never visited and knew nothing but the stereotypes) is now offensive to the guy that went there because he has honestly admitted that he - formerly the brunt of stereotype jokes - can't handle the stereotypes of the current occupants of his home town.

It wasn't offensive unless you are trying to be offended because someday (GASP!) dared address the issue of racism and stereotypes honestly. He was not *trying* to offend; he was trying to illuminate the absurdity of stereotypes. Anyone offended by this needs to stop looking for racism every time they turn around.

That being said...Uh...it's Time magazine in affiliation with CNN. You were expecting good journalism? lol Pleeease....

Oh my God Krellin we agree.

What.

:)

Yea, I'm also shocked :)

Ivo, I'm a little disappointed with your response of "someone wrote a poor article, with no bad intent, and then a bunch of brainwashed angry people started screaming to the heavens." Are you kidding me? Just how damn ignorant are you? Do you know the number of hate crimes that immigrant Indians have had to face in New Jersey? Wait, not just Indians - immigrants around America face a whole lot of shit despite being smarter, more hardworking and socially productive citizens then those who go about writing smack like this or vandalizing their communities.

Quoting from another rebuttal article:
"With lines like this, you can't blame angry readers for pegging Stein as racist:

"'dot heads' was the best racist insult we could come up with for a group of people whose gods have multiple arms and an elephant nose."

Not so funny if you know that the Dot Busters were a New Jersey-based hate group responsible for attacks on Indians in the 1980s. And it's even less funny when you consider that hate crimes against Indians continue to happen in the state today."

@krellin - easy for you to say as a white person. I can take a joke. I love Russell Peters and his racial-stereotypical humor. But that shit is funny. This is just lame. I don't care tuppence for Joel Stein. But TIME stands for something around the world. I guess that something just changed.

@ava - What does the color of my skin -- which you have NO idea what it is, by the way - have to do with whether or not the article was simply a very poorly written examination of stupid stereotyping. it was written by a white guy MOCKING HIMSELF for stereotyping! If anything, it was an indictment of stereotypes! But...I'll assume you are not white since you assume I am -- the fact that you say "easy for you to say as a white person" is EXACTLY the point of this. You - apparantly - think you HAVE to have different sensibilities because of you skin color. As if no white person has ever felt any form of stereotyping. You know....white people...all those angry, gun-toting, racist assholes....you know the stereotype....it's what you are thinking. You know, white people, the ones that get ALL the good jobs and have secret meeting rooms where they trade stock tips. You know white people....we get all the best produce at the lowest prices and nobody ever fucks with us. You know white people...the ones that, if they walk through certain streets in Detroit will be shot dead simply because the color of their skin...

Yeah....easy for me to say as a white guy because we's special. Thank you for demonstrating *your* racial bias and affinity for stereotyping by acting like the (presupposed) color of my skin should make a difference about my feelings about stereotypes or my ease to comment on them....It is just your bias that helps perpetutate the bias.

@Ivo and FS -- Your shock that I agree with you is perhaps because too often you miss the mockery of my arguments, or fail to read my comments completely before you lambaste me. We have our differences, for sure...but they are not nearly so radical as you assume when you (normally) attack me at the sight of my name. Often times I simply take a ridiculous argument that someone has made and apply their (faulty) logic to another argument. You will see the absurdity of my argument and call me a fool, but fail to see the direct analogy to the argument I am mocking. Perhaps that is my failure...or perhaps you just don't want to see it. (For example...when i see an atheist say religion is bad because of the action of a few, I say atheism is bad for the same reasons...NOT that I am trying to start that one, here.) Anyway...glad we all agree here.

You had respect for Time in the first place? Is there a more lickspittle news organization with regards to the consensus of the powerful classes in this country, other than perhaps the Wall Street Journal?

@krellin - I'm pretty sure you mentioned it on a thread you were trolling one night when you were drunk and playing a live game with me. My bringing up your skin color was just a simple reminder that your opinion had to be qualified.