Tuesday, August 07, 2012

In the Times...

Thanks to everyone who linked to, "liked" or tweeted about my post from Sunday. I have been overwhelmed by the support from everyone for the Sikh community in the wake of this tragedy. There may be people in this country who are gripped by hate, but there is no question in my mind this afternoon that they are outnumbered by the voices of tolerance, inclusion -- and indeed, love. (I am still waving my little American flag.)

The New York Times' India Ink blog printed a revised version of the post this morning. And look for meon NPR's All Things Considered Tuesday August 7. [Update: here's the link w/ audio and a transcript of my comments.]

And now enough, I think, of being a pundit for me. If you'd like to support victims of the Oak Creek shooting, you can get information on how to do so here.


6 comments:

Laura García said...

Hello, Amardeep. I'm not indian but I'm colombian (Actually, I live in Chile), and I just felt moved by your article at NYT. My english is not the best, but I hope you understand, at least, how much I admire you.
Best regards,-
Laura García
Journalist

prasad said...

I was wondering why you made the decision to leave out the para about Muslim women in hijab, hasidim and gays in the NY Times post. That seemed rather like the meat of your post, not what'd get snipped off for reasons of length. I can imagine (though it'd be a bit ironic) doing this for a post on Times of India, but these are hardly sentiments that'd piss off the NY Times readership.

Amardeep Singh said...

Prasad, it was as a result of suggestions given to me by the editor. He actually didn't think it was the *meat* of the post -- the two central things he wanted me to stick with were why we shouldn't say "I am not a Muslim" and "This is what happened to me..."

It was a tough call.

Sujatha said...

I thought that the lines that you were asked to excise were germane to the point of 'otherness' that you were discussing, and perfectly valid examples. I guess the editor didn't want to take the risk of a gazillion emails and protests from a large segment of the readership :)

Giribala said...

Read and listened to all three versions! While my heart goes out to the families of victims, I admire your level-headed response. And the shooter did turn out to be a white supremacist.

maverick said...

Hi Deep,

I am still not seeing a solid motive here for the killings here.

There appears to be no clear causal or material link between the shooter's racist associations and the Oak Creek attack.

The killer did not leave any written or audio visual or simply verbal record with anyone of his intentions or motives. This is highly unusual for racist spree killers.

The usual places are now claiming that the event was staged, and that it is an SPLC provocation! - to me that means they have no idea why it happened either.

I feel the theory of a misrecognition can't be supported with any actual evidence.

There is no harm in promoting communal harmony and discussing theories of misrecognition and possible underlying racist motives, but the inability to find hard evidence of a motive in this case is really troubling.

Something is not right here.

Oak Creek was the second spree killing in a month or so. A third attempt was contained in Texas yesterday. I strongly suspect there is an undiagnosed pattern of crime.