Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

Rep. Curt Clawson took officials for Indians

16 posts in this topic

WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) --Congress' newest member made a major faux pas at a hearing last week when he apparently mistook two senior U.S. officials for Indian government representatives.

Attending his first Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Thursday, Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., repeatedly addressed senior officials in the State and Commerce Departments as if they were testifying on behalf of the Indian government.

"I'm familiar with your country; I love your country," Clawson told Nisha Biswal, from State, and Arun Kumar, from Commerce. "Anything I can do to make the relationship with India better, I'm willing and enthusiastic about doing so."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tea Party Republicans are amazing creatures. No less amazing, than the people who vote them into office.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tea Party Republicans are amazing creatures. No less amazing, than the people who vote them into office.

Then we have a Dem, Representative Johnson who actually thought Guam would be in danger of tipping over. Amazing, isn't it? No less amazing then the people that voted him into office.

Two way street bro.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, we are all being bamboozled by the power hungry elite. It has come to a point when I look at the ballot I think should I vote for satan or the devil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

well those 2 are indians, honest mistake.

post-45398-0-35204900-1406572118_thumb.j

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well those 2 are indians, honest mistake.

Which would be indicative of the inability to read of Rep. Curt Clawson, witnesses have a sign showing their name and position on the stand... for the "older" members of Congress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would be indicative of the inability to read of Rep. Curt Clawson, witnesses have a sign showing their name and position on the stand... for the "older" members of Congress...

I don't see any signs showing their position in the video, just their names. Not saying there weren't signs, just didn't see any in the video. It is a meeting of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee and they are Indian. They were introduced as US government officials however.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any signs showing their position in the video, just their names. Not saying there weren't signs, just didn't see any in the video. It is a meeting of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee and they are Indian. They were introduced as US government officials however.

They are not Indians, they are Americans of Asiatic origin, which is not quite the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any signs showing their position in the video, just their names. Not saying there weren't signs, just didn't see any in the video. It is a meeting of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee and they are Indian. They were introduced as US government officials however.

"Hon." is short for "Honorable", which is a courtesy prefix title used for senior department officials. It's written on the name cards in front of them, specifically to avoid this sort of mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hon." is short for "Honorable", which is a courtesy prefix title used for senior department officials. It's written on the name cards in front of them, specifically to avoid this sort of mistake.

Surely you are not claiming that this is the sole use of "Hon." According to Wiki (yes I know) "Hon." is used in India also, along with many other nations.

Perhaps including their job title would have helped. Perhaps not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not Indians, they are Americans of Asiatic origin, which is not quite the same.

"Americans of Asiatic origin" might be Indian, as in the case here. It's an ethnicity too, questionmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Americans of Asiatic origin" might be Indian, as in the case here. It's an ethnicity too, questionmark.

Well, not really, there are many ethnic groups ranging from Aryans (real ones, not shrunken northern Germanoids) to Negritos over Mongoloids to Dravidians. Indian is a nationality, not an ethnic group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not really, there are many ethnic groups ranging from Aryans (real ones, not shrunken northern Germanoids) to Negritos over Mongoloids to Dravidians. Indian is a nationality, not an ethnic group.

:unsure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Surely you are not claiming that this is the sole use of "Hon." According to Wiki (yes I know) "Hon." is used in India also, along with many other nations.

Perhaps including their job title would have helped. Perhaps not.

You do see it on the name sign, then?

The guy is a congressman elected in an emergency election after the previous congressman was fired from his position. Being a member of a subcommittee, I would expect him to know, at a minimum, who the foreign representatives are. Maybe not who everyone on our side is, not with only a month in (though it would be nice), but at least if the people we are supposed to be dealing with are in the room.

The guy screwed up. Not really a big deal, and at least it was only an embarrassment in-house (as far as I can tell, there weren't any foreign reps present), but let's not pretend it was unavoidable, even for an emergency elected freshman. I really do admire Ms. Biswal's polite and even response, even as both of them sat staring at Clawson in amazement, though. Class act, that lady.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the only thing Wikipedia got wrong. There is no Indian ethnicity, India is a multi-ethnic sub-continent (that would include Pakistan) or a nation ... depending on how you want to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fellow did apologize after learning of his error. I think it was a honest mistake (but no less cringeworthy and slightly humourous.)

However, it's this sort of tit for tat that makes politics so unbearable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.