alexist

Last week's New Yorker had an (oddly, considering the source) triumphalist column on the French rioting and models of integration:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051121ta_talk_kramer

I wouldn't be so negative on the British, first of all: it's not perfect, but it's worked better than any other European model.

Interestingly, "integrated but not assimilated" was a phrase used by Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks in his Yom Kippur message--and it was what he advocated, as represented by the Jews. And in that sense, it's not oxymoronic at all. Jews are integrated into British society, but we're not assimilated--we've maintained our own identity and community.

I think the writer overplays economics in America, as well. America does have a model--the hyphenated one, in which we're all American, but also something else. (Unless you're a WASP, in which case you're not considered to have a native culture.) It's made easier by the fact that people are on a more level footing--when almost everyone can trace their ancestry back to immigrants, it's harder for you to look down on newcomers. There's an "American ideal" to look at that's separate from some kind of ethnic or racial identity.

Of course, this doesn't remove the real racial tensions in America, but racism in the US is much less linked to immigration or xenophobia, and is more a product of historical experience, especially slavery. (And interestingly, black African immigrants today tend to do better than African-Americans [nomenclature gets complicated here!] or Caribbean-Americans, which suggests that something more complicated than simple anti-black prejudice is going on. Hispanics also have mixed records of achievement.)

In this month's Waitrose Food Illustrated, Giles Coren says (in response to "Is it fair for critics to judge a restaurant after just one visit?")

"If you can't tell on one visit, you can't tell on three. Americans go so often because they are too thick to get enough material from one visit. Have you ever read the dreary drivel they write?"

And if an American writer wrote something about bad British food, you'd be all over it, Giles.

(For the record, I think the question isn't quite right. It's fair--as one chef says, you only get one chance to impress a diner--but that doesn't mean it's ideal. Even discounting the "well, tough if they had an off night" point of view, it might be worthwhile as you might get a fuller picture and hence a better review from 2 or 3 visits.)

He really has it in for the Americans; I googled him. From the New York Times:
The timing of soul food chic in England could not be odder. Only a year ago, Giles Coren, a critic for The Times of London, spoke for many Brits when he likened grits to vomit and wrote that American food "is no different from the food in rural Ukraine in the darkest hours of Stalinism." He added: "It's just brighter colored and there's more of it."

What an asshole. Really.

I know people think I get too worked up about anti-Americanism--but you know what, if someone said "all black people are thick" (see quote in last post) they'd get slaughtered. Say shit about Americans, though, and it's all OK.

Me, lying on bed: "I hate the world."
Neil: "I knew you'd come round to my way of thinking."