It is not intended to be comprehensive, and I did not search for months to find these few examples. I stopped at seven because it seemed sufficient to show a trend. The Washington Post story contained two examples
I am not even trying to deny that there are hateful and bigoted people. Of course there are. I do think that in a country with huge amounts of hateful Islamophobia, there would be little need to fabricate stories of such attacks.
Very true. But it is hard to address any problem without careful examination of exactly what is happening, and why. At least a couple of those hijab stories were never intended for public investigation. Ms. Seweid invented the story to deceive her parents about a curfew violation.
Again, that doesn’t negate the very real problem. And the problem is deeper than just “hate crimes”, it’s about how it impacts people’s lives on a daily basis, which can include acts of violence, but also more subtle forms of discrimination.
And I think your examples highlights at least one of the reasons people might lie.
The bacon attacks on mosques do seem to be an issue that must be addressed. There is something very wrong with a person who would do something like that. But our reaction to bias incidents should be proportionate to their actual severity and frequency. Not to our internal perception of those things. And I am sorry if I have dragged this subject off topic somewhat.
So when was the last time a bunch of masked people with guns showed up to protest some other religion building a house of worship in an American city? If that doesn’t count as “Islamophobia” then what does?
Accuracy is also important. If you use the term “hate crimes” make sure you’re applying it correctly so you don’t have to later admit that you weren’t really talking about acts that are defined as hate crimes.
It’s tough, because as you say, the current government is not the people’s choice, but officially the country’s name is Myanmar, and that’s how it was referred to in the post that was then replied to. Considering the source, I didn’t think the name change was meant to show solidarity. If I’m wrong about that, I’ll be happy to apologize for jumping the gun. It just struck me as a manipulation rather than empathy, you know? I didn’t want to let it slide by unnoticed.
I was working at the U.N. then, and it was made very clear by their government that Burma could no longer be used to refer to the country. It wasn’t (and isn’t) a “pejorative”: the name was simply no longer allowed by the junta who had taken power.
You were responding to a post that mentioned the country by its official name. Why did you decide to change it? If someone had referenced Thailand, would you have responded by calling it Siam? Or Sri Lanka, Ceylon? Or Beijing, Peking?
Whether we like it or not, that’s how the country wants to be called. We don’t get to decide otherwise.
Do refer to Germany as Deutschland? What about Italy (Italia)? Not saying that the English versions are the exact same thing as Burma vs. The Union of Myanmar, but we don’t actually always call countries by the same name they call themselves, though perhaps people who work in the UN do?
I actually wrote that initial “Burma” reflexively, I am not surprised to hear that the government at that time was making an issue of the name in diplomatic communities. But that was not the case among the citizens or officials I met. Even so, If I recall correctly, someone or something from Myanmar is still called Burmese.
But anyway, I did not use the term to make any political statement.