Editorials and the quasi-editorial pieces like this are meant to be biased. This article is intended to be more like a blog and is not meant to meet the high standards of investigative journalism. To miss this and respond with knee-jerk condemnations is to show our lack of sophistication as readers.
The point of this genre of journalism is to exaggerate in order to provoke thought and discussion, and in that sense this article is a success. It certainly managed to get all of us to look at it and start discussing the more serious issues it raises about national identity, immigration, pluralism, etc.
I say good on the New York Times for printing it, and I am glad I started the thread because this discussion has been excellent and the opinions illuminating (including yours, Olive).
Olive--
Editorials and the quasi-editorial pieces like this are meant to be biased. This article is intended to be more like a blog and is not meant to meet the high standards of investigative journalism. To miss this and respond with knee-jerk condemnations is to show our lack of sophistication as readers.
The point of this genre of journalism is to exaggerate in order to provoke thought and discussion, and in that sense this article is a success. It certainly managed to get all of us to look at it and start discussing the more serious issues it raises about national identity, immigration, pluralism, etc.
I say good on the New York Times for printing it, and I am glad I started the thread because this discussion has been excellent and the opinions illuminating (including yours, Olive).